All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:35
Turn the Other Cheek?!? Bible Verses
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good, good morning.
Hope you're doing well.
Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain.
Freedomain.com slash donate if you would like to help out philosophy.
I would really, really appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
So, this is a passage that I have wrestled with for decades.
And I don't think I'm alone in that.
And I won't get into the details.
We know the general.
Turn the other cheek.
Turn the other cheek.
If a man hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other cheek.
Now, I mean, there are lots of details about this, which is a backhanded slap is to an inferior, an open-handed palm slap is to an equal, so there are sort of details about this, based upon the culture of the time in Jesus' day, that are interesting, but not, I think, foundationally relevant, because...
If you combine it with two of the other admonitions of Jesus, which is, if someone sues you for your shirt, give him your cloak as well.
And you could pawn your cloak back in the day, but it had to be returned by sundown, because otherwise you'd be cold.
And of course, if you give up your shirt and your cloak, then you are somewhat naked from the waist up, which would be considered very humiliating.
So there's that.
If an enemy asks you to walk a mile with him, walk two miles with him.
So back in the day of Jesus, of course, one of the ways in which Jews and others were humiliated or controlled was a soldier could order you to carry a burden for up to a mile, which was a thousand paces back in the Roman day.
And so he's saying, if your oppressor demands that you obey him in one matter, then convert it into a free will thing by going, So, there's sort of local, interesting things that were going on in Jesus' day,
but interesting wrinkles though they are, they don't touch the foundation of the matter, which is, you know, to try to do good to those who do you evil, to pray for those who are evil and do you harm, and to feed Those who oppress you and give them comfort and so on, right?
Now, I mean, there's, of course, an enormous number of things that we could talk about.
I'll just try and focus on the major issues here as I see them.
So, the first thing that is important to notice is that this is not forever and ever amen, right?
So, when Jesus says, if somebody strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek, he's not saying forever and ever.
If somebody forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles, right?
So again, this is double, right?
One cheek, two cheek, one mile, two miles.
And again, we see the doubling with, if he sues you for your cloak, give him your shirt as well.
So these are doubling.
One cheek, two cheek, one mile, two mile, one piece of clothing, two pieces of clothing, and that's the commandment.
That is the commandment.
It is not forever and ever.
He doesn't say if somebody hits you on, slaps you on one cheek, let him abuse you forever.
He doesn't say if someone sues you for your shirt, give him your cloak and your donkey and your house and your wife and your slaves.
He doesn't say any of that, right?
He says double.
Now, what is the meaning of double?
And I'm going to get real personal here because I have wrestled with this, and I have deployed this.
It was one of the first moral instructions, and it shocks the sensibilities, because in many ways, and in many cases, and throughout most of the world, our instinct is to escalate.
If somebody hits us, we hit them back and harder.
I remember I used to play tennis with a guy, and it was kind of like a running joke.
Whatever I hit, he would hit it back harder.
He would never...
Do a soft shot, never do a drop shot or anything like that.
Like, no matter, you could hit it to him blistering and he would often lose because he would just always want to hit it back harder.
And it actually caused him to lose.
And that's not the most elegant analogy, but it was just sort of a fact that I remember.
So, to do double and then stop.
Now, how did I liberate myself from the corrupt people in my life?
I gave them what they did not give me.
So corrupt people in my life lied to me continually, really about loving me, but lied to me about a variety of things, and I returned to them the truth.
I sat down with them and I talked about the truth, the truth of my experience, the truth of my evaluations, the truth of my judgment, the truth of what they did.
So I returned good for evil, and that liberated me.
I returned good for evil, and that liberated me.
I mean, you've heard me a zillion times.
If you have significant moral difficulties with someone in your life, if they've done you great harm, or any harm, sit down with them and be honest and tell them about your experience in the hopes of improving things, right?
So, if someone, let's say, was hit by her parents when she was growing up, My advice, of course, has never been go hit your parents' back and harder to teach them a lesson, right?
That has never been my advice.
My advice has always been go and talk to your parents and tell them the truth about your experience and give them the opportunity for repentance, right?
Because if someone has done you evil and you go and you approach them with truth and honesty and openness and, of course, all of the attended and associated vulnerabilities, Then you give them the opportunity to apologize.
You give them the opportunity to repent, to make amends, and there is, in that way, the opportunity to begin the process, if that's what you want, at least the opportunity of repairing the relationship, or you could say really starting the relationship for the first time.
So, with regards to those who did me evil, I sat down.
And had conversations, those who had lied to me.
I returned truth to them, those who had dominated me.
I returned vulnerability to them.
And I did this usually on more than one occasion.
And because I returned honesty and vulnerability to those who had lied to me and dominated me, and I did this usually twice, with my mother three times, But I think with everyone else at least twice.
Because I did that, I was liberated.
And I don't have those corrupt people in my life.
Neither do I have a bad conscience.
Because, of course, the great challenge, if, you know, if somebody hits you and then you just belt them, you're taking a big risk.
Right?
You're taking a very big risk.
And I'll obviously go into what that means.
So let's say somebody slaps me.
And I just punch them full in the face, right?
Well, I'm taking a big risk.
I've established a principle of escalation, which means they will now attack me with everything they've got, and also they may come back with their brothers or their cousins or their uncles and catch me in some desolate place at nighttime and do me great, grievous bodily harm, injury or death.
So, if somebody slaps me and I punch him, Then I am establishing a principle of escalation.
The person has already revealed that they have the capacity for violence, and escalation is the principle that I have established.
Where does it stop?
So there's that risk.
The other risk, of course, is that somebody slaps me, I punch them full in the face, that they might be injured significantly, right?
They might lose an eye, they might lose a couple of teeth.
They might have a concussion.
They might fall backwards and hit their head against a rock.
They might go into a coma.
They might die.
And then I have a big problem, both in terms of conscience and in terms of legal repercussions, right?
I mean, if I kill someone, I could die, of course, through the legal system or simply through retribution from the person's family, right?
So, escalation, where does it lead?
Where does it lead?
And they do say, you know, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and so on, right?
I get all of that, and that's saying that your response should be proportional, but it is very hard to make things proportional.
So if somebody slaps me and I hit that person back, let's say it's a proportional response, well, how do I make it exactly proportional?
I don't know exactly how hard they hit me.
I don't know if they have any particular vulnerabilities physically.
Right?
They call this in boxing a glass jaw.
Like, your jaw is just easily broken for whatever reason, right?
They might have a really loose tooth, which I might knock out.
Like, I don't know.
Like, they didn't knock out my tooth.
I hit them back even with roughly the same strength.
Then, you know, they might turn their head and my nail goes into their eyeball.
I mean, they could lose a tooth because they have a loose tooth.
I mean, it's really hard to know.
In fact, it's really impossible to know how to respond in an equal measure.
Right?
They could be older.
And more frail.
They could be younger and less frail than me, in which case, what is proportional?
So, it's easy to say an eye for an eye, but it's hard to know how to actually have a proportional response, an equal response to a provocation.
Instead of defamation and so on, like I open a restaurant and somebody lies about, you know, they found a mouse in the soup or something like that, they lie about it.
Well, how...
How exactly are my losses to be quantified?
I mean, some of them might be quantifiable to some degree based upon fewer people coming to my restaurant right after, but stress, tension, you know, whatever, the cost and time of legal action.
I mean, these are complicated issues.
So, although it's easy to say an eye for an eye, it's pretty hard to put into practice.
So, I mean, if somebody steals a book of mine, What is the issue?
If it's some book that I'm never going to read, that somebody left at my house, I may not particularly care about it.
If it's the diary of my father that I love and read every night, if it has massive sentimental value, it could be a record of all of my sales and transactions for my business, which could be complicated and difficult to replace.
So it's really hard to know what is proportional.
It's why there are so many guidelines when it comes to sentencing.
So, the admonition of Jesus is, do not react with escalation.
Now, if somebody hits you and you just kind of give them a weak shot, then you're signifying weakness, right?
So, if you go too hard, you're establishing the principle of escalation, which could end very badly.
On the other hand, if you just give some sort of weak-wristed, flicky response, Then you are perceived as weak.
And if you are perceived as weak, then bullying and a continuation of these things or a further escalation might be in, right?
So I think Jesus is saying with an immediate provocation, and these are insults, right?
This is not a wound.
A slap to the face is not some mortal wound.
Losing your shirt is not a mortal wound.
Being forced to walk a mile and carry a burden is not a mortal wound.
So he's talking about insults.
If you're unjustly sued, that's an insult.
If somebody slaps you, that's an insult.
If somebody makes you walk a mile, that's an insult.
This is not grievous bodily harm.
Now, when it comes to, in a sense, daring somebody to repeat the injury, what you're probing for, Is accident?
Right?
So if somebody hits you on the cheek, it could have been by accident.
Maybe it was a case of mistaken identity.
Maybe they have some sort of epilepsy.
Maybe there was a dangerous bug on your face and they were just trying to slap it away.
I know it sounds a little outlandish, but it could be the case that you have misinterpreted or they have misinterpreted the situation.
And remember, of course, this is a time when...
Men wore beards, so a slap on the cheek was not as painful because the beard would cushion a good deal of it, so not quite the same as a clean-shaven guy with an open palm, right?
So, turn the other cheek is, do they want to injure you?
Some people will slap someone because they have a sudden surge of anger, and then they're horrified by what they've done, right?
I mean, this happens in domestic abuse situations.
Or there's a very sort of chilling scene in a movie with Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson, where he's saying he wishes her dead, and I mean, Adam Driver's an excellent actor, and he actually, you can see that he hates what his anger is making him say.
And it's really, it's very, very well done.
So, in domestic violence situations, a man may push a woman, and then be immediately horrified at what he's done.
And say, oh God, this is terrible.
I can't do this.
You know, we have to stop.
You know, maybe I need to go to anger management, I get some therapy, or we need to break up.
So, in which case, the escalation is obviously much less likely.
So, if somebody hits you on the cheek, you turn the other cheek to see if they're committed to escalation.
Don't respond.
Find out the truth about the situation.
Are they horrified?
Was it a case of mistaken identity?
Did they see a bug on your...
Right?
Did they see a bug on your cheek?
Was there something...
Did they have a sudden flash of anger that they then enormously regret?
In which case, right, the de-escalation is...
Is the de-escalation going to happen on its own or is the person committed to escalating?
In other words, do they have a conscience?
Right?
So it's the same thing with being sued.
Somebody sues you for your shirt and you give them your cloak.
Now, if they greedily grab the cloak, even though they didn't sue for it, then they're greedy and predatory and sociopathic and so on.
And even if they sue you for your shirt and then you give them your cloak as well...
Now, of course, a normal person, let's say that you owe them a shirt, they sue you for your shirt.
Now, if you give them your cloak as well, they would say, no, no, no, I just need the shirt, right?
I just need the shirt, don't, don't...
I just need my shirt, I just need the...
The shirt, I don't need your cloak, right?
That's what a normal, reasonable person would do.
If the person who only wants your shirt or is only suing for your shirt then greedily takes your cloak as well, then he's kind of a monster, right?
He's just there to acquire your property without restraint, without conscience, without fairness, and then you're in a different situation.
If somebody hits you in the cheek, you turn the cheek, and then they hit you on the other cheek as well, then it's not...
A mistake.
It's not an accident.
They didn't just have some kind of seizure.
They didn't, you know, you could hit someone in the cheek.
I mean, I think everyone's done this at one time or another in their life.
Or maybe you don't gesture as much as I do when telling stories.
But I've gestured.
I remember when I was younger, I gestured at a potty and the back of my hand smacked someone in the cheek.
And I was like, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry.
You know, and I, you know, situational awareness became a bit more of a priority and so on.
So, I mean, it was a complete accident, right?
And I certainly didn't mean to, and I did my big apologies.
But what if that person, if I smacked him in the cheek, he just belted me in the head?
Then we'd have a big giant problem, which was a result of an inconsequential accident, right?
And I say inconsequential because obviously I was just gesturing.
I didn't do any damage to him.
I just kind of startled him.
So it's in a sense, find out the facts of the situation.
If you're sued for your shirt, and then you offer the cloak, and if the person's like, yeah, great, I'll take that.
And your donkey, and your house.
Then you're just dealing with a predatory sociopath who's greedily going to try and get everything he can from you, and now you're in a situation where you know the facts.
What are the facts?
What are the facts?
So, with the case of the Roman soldier, if your enemy forces you to walk a mile with him, walk too.
Now, the reason that you do that, or at least I think the reason you would do that, is...
Is the Roman soldier enforcing the law, or is he greedy for personal dominance?
Because this is the great fear with law enforcement.
The great fear with law enforcement is they're not in it for the law, they're not in it for justice, they're in it for power control and the humiliation of their subjects.
So if the law only allows the Roman soldier to force you to walk the Roman mile a thousand paces, and then you say, no, no, no, I'm going to walk two miles, And if the Roman soldier is, yeah, great, fantastic, keep carrying my burden, then he's gone above and beyond the law, and it's no longer about the law.
Now it's about his laziness, his desire to subjugate you to whatever, right?
In other words, if you offer something more, and the person takes it, if you offer someone something more than justice allows, and they take it, then they're not interested in justice anymore.
I hope this makes sense, right?
Now, if the Roman soldiers, if you say, I'll walk two miles rather than one with your burden, and the Roman soldier says, no, no, you've got to stop here.
The law only allows one mile, so I'll take it from here.
Then he's enforcing the law, and he is, again, we can argue the justice of the law, of course, right?
But he is not in it to subjugate you.
He is not in it to get more than the local conception of justice or fairness allows.
And this can be very liberating, right?
I paid a lot of money when I was younger to help someone I cared about make a movie, and then I asked that person to review one of my novels, and that person said, they sort of didn't do it, didn't do it.
And then that person said, well, it's your job to make me want to do it.
And because of my generosity, I was liberated from that relationship.
I had another friend who inherited a car, but he never bothered to get his license, and he was a long way away from me.
And, you know, to see him, sometimes I would bundle up my wife and daughter in a car and drive through the snow for like two plus hours to visit with him, but he never even bothered to get his license so that he could come out and visit me.
So I went above and beyond to maintain the relationship.
At some point, I was just like, meh, it's just one-sided.
So going above and beyond gives you clarity about the relationship.
In other words, did my friend have empathy and say, well, gee, it's a lot harder for Steph to come visit me because he's got a baby in the car and all that kind of stuff, and, you know, I should go and get my license so I can go and visit him, which would be easier and better, right?
Or, you know, even if he didn't want to get his license, at least he could.
You know, take the subway and a bus and get somewhat close to where I lived so that we wouldn't have to drive so far.
So, in other words, how much was I worth to this person?
Was I worth him getting his license?
He had a free car, for heaven's sakes, right?
So, was it worth him getting his license?
Well, my friendship was not worth him, even though we've been friends for decades, my friendship was not worth him getting a license.
So, I understood that, and I understood, sadly, Where I stood in his hierarchy.
And it was basically like he was the king and I had to move heaven and earth to go pay court to him.
And I just didn't want to.
So going above and beyond reveals whether there's reciprocity.
Is there reciprocity?
So if somebody hits you and you don't immediately whack them back, you de-escalate, do they follow you down the path of de-escalation or do they continue to escalate?
Well, that tells you, Their moral nature.
If you react, you are obscuring the other person's moral nature, because now they're not responding to their own potential conscience or values.
Now they're just responding to you at your escalation.
You know, with regards to my mother, I used to give her a lot of money to help her out.
But unfortunately, she took all my money and poured it into the pockets of what was to me pretty skeevy lawyers to pursue endless court cases against people I did not believe.
We're guilty, so I stopped doing that.
So I went above and beyond to find out if I could actually help her, but it turns out that, to me at least, she was taking the money that I gave her and doing negative or corrupt things with it, and so I had to stop.
The last time that I saw my mother, when I told her I didn't want to spend all the time talking about her court cases because it had been...
I think she'd been pursuing these things for like 15 years or whatever, and just every time it was just blah, blah, blah, blah, court case, court case.
And I said, you know, I just don't want us to have to talk about one thing.
I don't mind talking about the court cases, but I'd also like to talk about other things from time to time.
And so, you know, a fairly mild and calmly asserted preference resulted in her throwing things around and screaming at the top of her lungs.
And I mean, that's very sad, obviously.
But then I can withdraw with no bad conscience, right?
I mean, if someone hits you, you whack them back.
And it turns out, like if at that party many years ago, I think it was the...
Oh yeah, I think it was the after party for when I played Macbeth.
So if I whacked a guy and he just turned and belted me, right?
And he was a good guy, but just obviously a volatile temper.
And he then found out it was just a complete accident.
I was just gesturing telling a story and I happened to whack him in the cheek.
He would feel terrible.
I know I would, right?
I mean, if I had some foul temper and some guy...
You know, was gesturing, telling me a story, and then I just clocked him on and knocked him out.
I'd be like, holy crap, something's wrong with me.
Like, this guy didn't even need to hit me.
He was just telling a story, and I just put him on the ground.
I would feel terrible.
So, you're looking to see how the other person processes de-escalation.
Now, if the other person processes de-escalation as an opportunity to harm you further, then you are in eye-for-an-eye territory.
Right?
So you've got to find out the facts.
De-escalate, see how the other person responds.
I won't get into details, of course, but I remember being very generous in the business world, helping people out, right?
And when you're very generous in the business world, you wait to see if it's reciprocated.
Is it reciprocated?
Does the other person then say, wow, you know, you did me a solid, here's how I can help you, and so on, right?
I mean, a friend of mine was looking for work.
I moved heaven on earth to get him a job interview.
Guy never even showed up or called.
To cancel.
Oh man, I forgot.
It's like, okay, well, right?
I sent a listener a fairly good chunk of money because he was broke and he gave him coaching on how to get a job and he got the job but then he got fired within a week because he was up all night playing video games and didn't show up for work.
It's like, well, I can't help, right?
I can't help.
So, it allows you to move on.
Without a bad conscience, once you've identified somebody, and I'm talking not about the context of my personal relationships, but in the context of the lawsuit and taking your shirt and in the context of walk a mile and in the context of turn the other cheek.
So, if you find that somebody is corrupt and malevolent, unsympathetic, then you go from turn the other cheek, which is why it doesn't go on forever, right?
Which is why there's a limitation on turn the other cheek.
And the relationship between turn the other cheek and an eye for an eye is, if you turn the other cheek and the guy whacks you again, it wasn't an accident, and he's going to escalate, and your de-escalation isn't going to work, so now you move into, you go from New Testament to Old Testament, you go into an eye for an eye territory.
And this is what I've always said about, say, British people.
British people tend to be very nice and accommodating until they're not.
And this is because Turn the other cheek to eye for an eye.
So, I mean, over the course, I won't get into any details, of course, it don't really matter, but over the course of my life, I've had enemies, as you know, and I will try to work things out with enemies, try to find some common ground, and if they continue to escalate, then I am no longer in...
How do I put this nicely?
I am no longer in a position of sympathy.
So, if somebody has really harmed me, Or not really harmed me, but let's say trash-talked me or lied about me.
Then I will sort of try to fix things.
And if I can't fix things because they're relentless in their hostility, then I no longer care what happens to them.
And I've had people who've treated me badly over the years reach out for help, and I don't help them.
I don't hate them.
I don't even really think about them.
And I don't feel bad about not helping them.
Especially if they reach out.
Without an apology.
Or if they reach out with sort of a mealy-mouthed apology and then demand help.
It's like, no.
Like, so I'm no longer in a situation where I can be manipulated through empathy because I did the turn the other cheek.
Right?
Are you dealing with a mistake?
Are you dealing with someone who's hot-tempered but reformable?
Are you dealing with somebody who's making an error?
Or are you dealing with a truly malevolent person who's going to escalate no matter what you do?
Well, those are two very different situations.
De-escalation, when it's an accident or a flash of temper that can be reformed, is wise.
It's good.
That's decent.
However, continuing to turn the other cheek, which is why he doesn't then say, and then, you know, lift up your belly so he can hit you there, and then lower your pants so he can strike your buttocks.
He's just like, one cheek, two cheek, done.
One mile, two miles, done.
One shirt, one cloak, done.
And if somebody continues to pray upon you after...
You de-escalate, then you're in eye-for-an-eye territory, right?
And then you have a good conscience because you are not acting in haste, you are not escalating prior to gathering information, you have firmly established that the person is a predatory enemy who will always escalate and has no empathy, no conscience, no guilt.
Like when I hit the guy at the party, I was like, oh my god, I'm so sorry.
That was a total accident.
Let me get you a drink.
Just real apologies, right?
This was an accident.
So he had no need to escalate because I was not aggressing against him.
Or, to put it another way, when I hit him by accident, I felt really bad.
And of course, you can even hit someone on purpose and then feel really bad afterwards.
And maybe that could be a transformative moment where you deal with hot temper or an ill temper or something like that, right?
So, once you gather information and you approach something calmly, once you gather information, you are actually mapping the moral nature of the person you are in conflict with.
So, you know, when I spoke calmly to my mother who was aggressing against me, when I sat down with her and reasoned through and told her my experience and reasoned through what I went through and what she did and so on, then I clearly was telling the truth and not...
Insulting her, calling her names, escalating, screaming at her, yelling at her, threatening her.
I was simply telling the truth.
So my conscience was clear as to how I was behaving.
And I did it three times because the first time can be a shock.
The second time might be a manipulation.
But if the third time you're still getting, you know, gaslit and lied about and minimized and so on, then that's it, right?
Once is an accident or could be.
Once could be an accident.
Two could be a coincidence.
Three is a pattern.
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.
Or, to put it more accurately, once might be an accident, twice might be a coincidence, three times is a pattern.
That's why I give the 24-hour rule when it comes to apologies.
If somebody has wronged me and I talk to them about it, or they find out about it that they were wronged, that they wronged me, then if I don't get an apology, Within 24 hours, I write that person off completely.
And that has never failed.
That has never failed.
That doesn't mean that years later, people haven't circled back and apologized or whatever.
We've even had shows with people like that.
But in terms of what I can do, right?
That's the journey they have to go through.
So turn the other cheek is find out the moral nature of the person who you think has aggressed against you or who has aggressed against you.
Find out if it's an accident, mistaken identity, a bug on your cheek, something like that.
Epilepsy.
Or, here's another one.
Let's say somebody hits you, and it turns out to be somebody who is mentally impaired, who was set up to do that by a bunch of giggling kids just trying to cause trouble, right?
Somebody whacks you, and it turns out he's not very smart.
He was dared by a bunch of kids or paid a few coppers to whack you for whatever, so they could giggle about it, right?
So find out the facts.
De-escalation finds out...
What happens with de-escalation?
If the person continues to escalate after you de-escalate, then you can retaliate, respond, remove yourself, whatever it's going to be, knowing that you did the right thing and you found out the facts of the situation.
If you see an employee taking money out of your till in your business, then you need to sit down and talk with the employee.
And if the employee says, I am so sorry, like, I realized I didn't even have bus fare to get home.
You know, it was one in the morning.
I forgot my wallet at home.
I didn't have any cash.
I took the cash to take the bus.
Here, it's back.
Like, I'm really sorry.
That was not right, but I didn't have any other way of getting home, right?
Whatever.
You can invent some scenario where the stealing is not some massive con job, ill intent, pilfering and pillaging.
Find out the facts.
I mean, this is what the law does, right?
The law is, well, we're going to call witnesses and...
Have evidence and exclude hearsay and so on, right?
So, the law is there to find out the facts before the judgment is passed.
And, of course, you can't have a court case every time somebody does something that's difficult or unpleasant for you, but you can de-escalate and see what happens.
You de-escalate, somebody else escalates or continues, then you know the situation, the de-escalation won't work.
And then you can remove yourself, or you can escalate back, or whatever.
But of course, you know, you think of, right, so you can think of sort of 18th century European culture, or this happens sometimes in Hispanic or black cultures, where somebody views something as disrespectful and goes to violence, right?
So this would happen with duels, right?
You insulted me, we're going to shoot each other's arms off at dawn, right, the next day.
Or, you know, you disrespected me, and then...
So...
It's a way of just saying, you know, calm down, find out the facts, and don't immediately go to escalation, but instead gather information about the nature and purpose of your, quote, attacker.
Is it a genuine attacker?
Does he genuinely hate you?
Is he going to be relentless?
Okay, then you can either fight back or you can move away from the situation and so on, right?
There is, of course, the situation, and we've sort of heard of these situations, they're a little less defensible, but You know, someone comes into your house at two in the morning.
Well, you know, 99 times out of 100 or 9,000, 999 times out of 10,000, that is a very bad situation, that the person is, it's a home invasion, it's a robbery, it's something malevolent, a thief, right?
And you're in significant danger and so on, right?
However, you know, once in a while, you forgot to lock the front door and a drunk person thought it was their house, right?
And I'm not saying that you should always assume, oh, it's just a drunk person, I left the door open or whatever, right?
They think it's their house and it's just an accident or whatever, right?
But of course, you'd want to know that, right?
So if you look at the person and it's your fairly friendly, though slightly drunken neighbor, then you'd say, bro, you're in the wrong house.
And you're, oh, sorry, man.
He goes back out or whatever, right?
That's what you would want to do.
You wouldn't want to shoot him.
You know, on the other hand, if it's somebody in a set of striped clothing, With a Lone Ranger mask on, carrying a big bag called Lute, well, then you're in a different situation.
That's not a case of mistaken house identity.
That is somebody who's come to steal, right?
In which case, you're in a different situation.
So, the great thing about Turn the Other Cheek is it gathers information and it allows you to act with justice and knowledge rather than react, often with escalation, prior to establishing motive intent.
And conscience, whether the person has a conscience or not, right?
I had a conscience.
I have a conscience.
So when I smacked someone at a party, I was like, oh man, I'm so sorry.
That was, oh God, I feel terrible.
Are you okay?
A total accident.
My bad.
I'm so sorry.
Although my bad was not a thing back then.
That staccato shortcut wasn't really around.
So to me, that's what I've sort of struggled with this.
What did Jesus mean?
What does the moral commandment mean?
And it really is the basis of our legal system.
And it is the basis of being nice until it's time to not be nice.
It's the old roadhouse thing, right?
It's important to be nice until it's time to not be nice.
And being nice finds out if niceness is going to work, if the person has a conscience and is willing to de-escalate, and if they don't have a conscience and are not willing to de-escalate, then you make your decision.
And in my case, the decision in almost all of these circumstances, occasionally, I've rained holy hellfire down on people, if they will not respond.
And so, at times in my life, I've rained holy hellfire down on people, and I won't get into those details, but it's happened.
But that's only after significant periods of negotiation.
But in most circumstances, I will simply detach myself from the relationship and will move on without Any bad conscience about what happens to those people in the future?
I gave it my best shot.
I did my very best.
I returned honesty for lies.
I returned integrity for corruption.
I returned truth for falsehood.
I returned de-escalation for escalation.
And then if the person still continues to double down, lie, gaslight, manipulate, be corrupt, and abuse my sense of reality for their own personal, petty, emotional, or financial gain, Then I can walk on, and I'm telling you, man, being able to walk on with a good conscience is one of the greatest gifts in life.
I don't look back and say, ooh, I should have given that person another chance, or ooh, I should have tried this, I should have tried that.
I just, I don't.
I have a good, clean conscience, and it's because I applied, turn the other cheek, I have a good, clean conscience, and I no longer have to worry about bad things that happen to people, because their moral nature Has been revealed, and we have empathy for the empathetic.
If you have empathy for the solar sociopaths in the world, you will just be taken advantage of, bled dry, and exploited, right?
So, I reserve my empathy for those who are empathetic, but in order to find out whether they're empathetic, I need to turn the other cheek and see if escalations continue.
So, it is a highly recommended path, and it is really the best way to avoid the two poles in life, right?
So if you don't act to protect yourself, then you are exploited and pillaged and have no life and are a slave to corrupt evildoers.
If you act too hastily, then you have regret at not finding out the facts before being too volatile.
And of course, the more you train yourself to react and escalate without finding out the facts, the more dangerous you become in personal relationships and the less likely...
Honorable good people will want to spend any time with you, so you end up trapped either with corrupt people or no one, which leads to significant regret.
So, I hope that helps, and I hope this clarifies at least my perspective on these very powerful verses.
And, yeah, we don't want a mob to just stone people to death, right?
We want to find out the facts before we punish, and that means not escalating and finding out the true moral nature of our Perhaps opponents, so.
All right, freedomain.com slash donate.
Come on, you know this stuff is super helpful and super powerful as well.
So I hope that you will help out the show at freedomain.com slash donate and have yourself a beautiful, beautiful day.
I'll talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection