Who Are the Real Heroes?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You're standing where the camera is. You have a loaded gun. What do you do?

Well, this is a rather unfair question in a way. It is difficult to examine without being in the situation, knowing of the cirucmstances before hand, knowing the complete surroundings and so on. Without knowing anything else about what's going on, i would dive into the sewer manhole (that just happens to be out in the middle of a field), and escape.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider

Well, this is a rather unfair question in a way. It is difficult to examine without being in the situation, knowing of the cirucmstances before hand, knowing the complete surroundings and so on. Without knowing anything else about what's going on, i would dive into the sewer manhole (that just happens to be out in the middle of a field), and escape.

Great. You dove away, and the Nazi SS soldier pulls the trigger and murders the woman and her child. Well done. At least you are safe and sound.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


An orange or an apple is a fruit...eating it kills nothing. Not the same as killing a tree. He killed a tree to prove a point...which was what?

What about the food that tree could have produced to feed people?

True, but the lesson that the people received, and that we now recieve, was worth the death of a tree. People can always find fruit somewhere, but they can't always Jesus to teach them.

[Arrian]

If ever a thread deserved to be jacked...

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
If ever a thread deserved to be jacked...

The original topic was boring and only a thinly veiled attempt by DF to get people to compliment him.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

The idea that Jesus taught pacifism arose primarily due to the misunderstanding of a number of his sayings. When viewed from a Jewish perspective, the gospel passages on which pacifism is based point to a quite different conclusion.

Many people over the years have seen Jesus as a pacifist—and for good reason. Here was a man who apparently was willing to die rather than defend himself, a man who taught his disciples not to kill, not to resist evil, to love their enemies, not to fear those who kill the body, and that only those who are willing to lose their lives will be able to save them.1 Jesus' teachings seem very much like those of such popular pacifists as Tolstoy and Gandhi, and indeed, Tolstoy based his views on gospel passages.2

But did Jesus teach that it is wrong to defend oneself against attack? Did he really mean that we should not resist evil? Such a view seems to contradict what we read elsewhere in the Bible. In Romans 12:9, for example, Paul says that one should "hate what is evil," and in James 4:7 we read that we are to "resist the devil." It is clear from passages in Luke 22 that Jesus' disciples were armed,3 and Jesus himself advised them to purchase swords.4

These apparent contradictions may be reconciled by recognizing the Hebraic nuances of the gospel texts, and by developing a deeper understanding of the Jewish background to Jesus' words.

Kill or Murder?

One verse that is commonly cited in support of Jesus' pacifism is Matthew 5:21, which most English versions of the Bible render, "You shall not kill." The Greek word translated "kill" in this passage is a form of the verb phoneuo. This verb was always used as the equivalent of the Hebrew verb ra·TSAH in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Ra·TSAH is the word used in the sixth commandment in both Exodus 20:13 and its parallel, Deuteronomy 5:17. It seems quite certain that in Matthew 5:21 Jesus was quoting the sixth commandment.

The words phoneuo; and ra·TSAH are both ambiguous and can mean either "kill" or "murder," depending upon the context. However, God himself commanded capital punishment for such crimes as deliberate murder (Exod. 21:12–15), rape (Deut. 22:25–26), kidnapping (Exod. 21:16), adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22), sorcery (Exod. 22:18), and many other crimes. The sixth commandment, therefore, must be a prohibition against murder, not killing as such.

In spite of this, the King James Version of 1611, and the revisions of 1885 (Revised Version) and 1952 (Revised Standard Version), used "kill" rather than "murder" in translating Jesus' quotation of this commandment.5 Although most recent translations of the Bible have corrected this mistake,6 the "kill" of the King James Version and its successors has strongly influenced many English-speaking Christians' views of self-defense.

Hebrew Maxim

Another saying of Jesus on which his supposed pacifism is based is found in Matthew 5:39a. It is usually translated, "Do not resist evil," or "Do not resist one who is evil." However, when Jesus' saying is translated back into Hebrew, it is seen to be a quotation of a well-known Hebrew proverb that appears with slight variations in Psalms 37:1, v8 and Proverbs 24:19.7
This Hebrew maxim is usually translated, "Do not fret because of evildoers," or "Do not be vexed by evildoers." Bible translators apparently have supposed from the contexts of this maxim in Psalm 37 and Proverbs 24, which emphasize that evildoers will be destroyed, that the righteous should not be concerned about evildoers or pay them any attention. This supposition is strengthened by the second half of Psalms 37:1 that, as it is usually translated, advises that one should not be envious of such evildoers. It thus appears that the verb translated "fret" or "be vexed" is correctly translated. However, elsewhere in the Bible this verb always seems to have some sense of the meaning "anger."8 Furthermore, the two parallels to this verb in Psalms 37:8, both synonyms for anger, suggest that the verb in Matthew 5 must also have that meaning.

The verb in question is from the root (h-r-h), whose basic meaning is "burn." From this root meaning is derived "anger," a sense that all Hebrew words from this root have in common. (Note that in English also, many verbs expressing anger have something to do with fire or burning—be hot, burn, boil, flare up.) In some occurrences of this root, anger is a result of jealousy or rivalry. Saul's jealousy of David caused him to fly into a rage (1 Sam. 20:7, 30). This nuance of h-r-h is also reflected in the use of "contend" in Isaiah 41:11 in Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, the translation published by the Jewish Publication Society: "Shamed and chagrined shall be all who contend with you."
The particular form of the verb used in our proverb is a form for intensive action and thus expresses a passionate anger. This furious anger leads to a response in kind. Such anger results in a rivalry to see who can get the better of the other, and in each round of the competition the level of anger and violence rises. This amounts to responding to evil on its own terms, to competing in doing wrong with those who wrong us.
The New English Bible's translation of Psalms 37:1 and 37:8 is unique: "Do not strive to outdo the evildoers or emulate those who do wrong. For like grass they soon wither and fade like the green of spring"; "Be angry no more, have done with wrath; strive not to outdo in evildoing." This seems to be the only version of the Bible that reflects the Hebrew "anger" verb's nuance of rivalry or competition.

Likewise, the Good News Bible is apparently the only translation of the New Testament that uses "revenge," or anything similar, to render Matthew 5:38–39: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who does you wrong. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too." It is surprising there are not other versions that translate in the same way. Following "But I tell you," the context demands "Do not take revenge," since the first part of verse 39 speaks of "an eye for an eye," in other words, punishment that is a response in kind.
In idiomatic English, Matthew 5:39a might read simply, "Don't try to get even with evildoers."9 Not "competing" with evildoers is very different from not resisting evildoers. Jesus was not teaching that one should submit to evil, but that one should not seek revenge. As Proverbs 24:29 says, "Do not say, 'I will do to him as he has done to me. I will pay the man back for what he has done.'" Jesus' statement has nothing to do with confronting a murderer or facing an enemy on the field of battle.

Mistranslation of Matthew 5:39a has created a theological contradiction, but when Jesus' saying is correctly understood, it harmonizes beautifully with other New Testament passages: "See that none of you pays back evil with evil; instead, always try to do good to each other and to all people" (1 Thess. 5:15); "Do not repay evil with evil or curses with curses, but with blessings. Bless in return—that is what you have been called to do—so that you may inherit a blessing" (1 Pet. 3:9); "Bless those who persecute you. Bless them, do not curse them. Do not pay anyone back with evil for evil…. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with everyone. Beloved, do not take revenge, but leave that to the wrath of God" (Rom. 12:14, 17–19); or, as Jesus commanded, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Mt. 5:44).

Resist Evil

Our response to evil does have to be resistance—it is morally wrong to tolerate evil. However, we also must continue to show love for the evildoer.
It should be noted that loving and praying for one's enemies in no way precludes defending oneself when one's life is in danger. One is morally obligated to preserve life, including one's own. Jesus never taught that it is wrong to defend oneself against life-threatening attack. However, he consistently taught his disciples to forgive and not to seek revenge against those who had attacked them. As Proverbs 20:22 counsels, "Do not say, 'I will repay the evil deed in kind.' Trust in the LORD. He will take care of it."

Our responsibility is not to respond in kind to belligerence directed against us. That only prolongs and perpetuates the evil. We are not to "be overcome by evil," but to "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21).
Not only does a pacifistic interpretation of Jesus' sayings contradict many biblical passages, but pacifism was never a part of Jewish belief. According to Scripture, for example, a person who kills a housebreaker at night is not guilty of murder: "If a thief is seized while tunneling [to break into a house], and he is beaten to death, the person who killed him is not guilty of bloodshed" (Exod. 22:2). The rationale is that the thief is ready to murder anyone who surprises him, thus one may preempt the thief.

The Jewish position on this issue is summed up in the rabbinic dictum, "If someone comes to murder you, anticipate him and kill him first."10 The sages taught that if one is in danger of being murdered, he should defend himself, even if there is a measure of doubt about the intention of the attacker. Furthermore, if another person's life is threatened, one is obligated to prevent that murder, if necessary by killing the attacker. The sages ruled that a person who is pursuing someone else with intent to murder may be killed.11 In light of this, it is very unlikely that Jesus, a Jew of the first century, would have espoused pacifism.
When we examine Jesus' words from a Hebraic-Jewish perspective, we can see what has been obscured by mistranslation and lack of familiarity with Judaism. The passages construed to support pacifism actually condemn revenge rather than self-defense. It is not surprising that this interpretation is consistent with Jesus' other teachings and the rest of biblical instruction.

Webnotes

1. Mt. 5:21; 5:39a; 5:44; 10:28; 16:25.
2. See Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is within You, trans. Constance Garnett (New York, 1894; repr. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984). In 1894 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, at that time a barrister in South Africa, read The Kingdom of God Is within You, which had been loaned to him by a Quaker. The book "overwhelmed" him, he wrote in his autobiography.
In 1906 Gandhi, struggling against racial prejudice in South Africa, launched a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience. In 1910 he founded Tolstoy Farm for the families of men who were jailed in the struggle. Later, in India, Gandhi founded other such communities based on Tolstoy's ideology. In 1920 he proclaimed his program of nonviolent noncooperation with the British rulers of India that led to freedom from British rule.
3. Lk. 22:38, 49.
4. Lk. 22:36.
5. In addition to the King James Version and its revisions, such versions as the New Jerusalem Bible, The Living Bible and The Amplified Bible render Mt. 5:21 as "kill." However, The Living Bible and The Amplified Bible show inconsistency by translating the sixth commandment using "murder" (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17).
6. Rendering Mt. 5:21 by "murder" or "commit murder" are the New English Bible, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, New American Bible, Good News Bible, New Berkeley Version and the New Testament translations of Goodspeed, Moffatt, Phillips, Stern (Jewish New Testament) and Weymouth.
7. I am indebted to Robert L. Lindsey for drawing my attention to the connection between Mt. 5:39a and these three passages. Ps. 37:1 and Prov. 24:19 read al ***·HAR ba·me·re·IM (Do not be furiously angry with evildoers). Ps. 37:8 reads al ***·HAR ak le·ha·RE·a (Do not be furiously angry; it can only do harm).
8. See the entry ha·RAH in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 5:171–176.
9. "Wrongdoers" might be preferable to "evildoers." As the context, which mentions insults and lawsuits, shows, Jesus probably was not speaking primarily of confrontations with criminals or enemies on the field of battle, but of confrontations with ordinary acquaintances who have committed an offense.
10. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72a.
11. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 8:7.

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/...le.asp?ID=1459

DinoD- The Old Testament must always be taken with a grain of salt. In it, they claim that God instructs people to kill all men, women and children in cities they conquer. Clearly, this isn't true. So any Old Testament influence that alters Jesus' message must scrutinized.

In response to the other points, they may or may not be translation errors, or alternative translations, or different intepretations, but one thing that needs no interpretation is Jesus' basic message. it's not complicated at all, and needs no study: Show uncondtional love for all people. This is what it was all about, and all we need to know. If we showed a level of love anywhere comparable to what Jesus showed for those who hated him, there would be no question of Jesus' pacifism. It would be self-evident.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Great. You dove away, and the Nazi SS soldier pulls the trigger and murders the woman and her child. Well done. At least you are safe and sound.

I didn't notice the child in the picture. Under these circumstances, I would make a desperate attempt to knock the gun out of the soldier's hands.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monkspider
I didn't notice the child in the picture.

Why should that matter?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Why should that matter?

I thought it was me only, therefore, trying to escape seemed like the best option. Now it seems that disarming the soldier is the best option.

[monkspider]

DinoD- As I hinted earlier, there is no need for fancy theology to understand God's message. There is no need to understand the parallels in Hebrew scriptures, as, obviously, the Hebrew scriptures had degenerated to a level that they hardly represent God at all. God's message is self-evident to all of us. Love everyone unconditionally, practice peace, tolerance, generosity, and in general, do what you can to make the lives of others better. The pacifisim debate is a foregone conclusion.
You're a smart man DinoD, you're on your way. Just give some thought to some of the things I have said.

[mactbone]

*sigh* There are no heroes. We design people that do not exist and apply the characteristics to people that do. There are people who do heroic things, but a hero that does not make.

Furthermore, I can be heroic merely for not paying for my tuition, it would certainly be a heroic effort to not to pay because I believe in paying for services granted and I would most certainly be kicked out.

Speaking of the original question - anybody who watched the NFL this past season - what was the big deal about Pat Tillman? Whould we make an effort to reward dumbasses? Let's see, I can quit a multi-million dollar job I'm good at... or I can get a whole lot of attention by joining the armed services! Maybe I'm too cynical but it seems to me that maybe he wasn't all that great of a player - or he was trying anything and everything to get away from the Cards.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Let's see, I can quit a multi-million dollar job I'm good at... or I can get a whole lot of attention by joining the armed services! Maybe I'm too cynical but it seems to me that maybe he wasn't all that great of a player

Were Ted Williams and Dimaggio bad players then?

[mactbone]

Ted Williams and DiMaggio weren't joining the armed services to be part of something extremely vague. Tillman quit football at the end of 2001 (can't remember if he made the decision before the season was over or not...) probably right after the regular season because the Cards did not make the playoffs.

I base part of my assessment of his ability in that he was given about the same amount of attention as a second tier safety - they kept referring to him as someone who could become real good. All of a sudden he joins the army and he's the only person not in the game of football that the NFL is promoting. I'm also a little tired of the excessive patriotic overtones in the NFL. Do we need American flags in the background of every promo, jet fighters spraying red, white and blue and special messages from service men? Don' get me wrong, I think some of it's OK and I respect the tradition of special games haveing a jet flyby, but it's getting ridiculous the past two years. Can't I just watch my football?

[DinoDoc]

Given his record, I'd have to say that Tillman is a great safety.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tillman is a pro-bowl safety, Mac. He was making good money. He REALLY believed in fighting terrorism and should be praised that he is willing to give up all that money and accolades to fight for his country.

And there is no reserve clause in football, so there is no reason why Tillman would have to stay in Phoenix forever.