You can’t turn your other cheek when you’re dead, so I am pretty sure he didn’t mean it as allow yourself to get killed.

Besides, Ukraine did turn other cheek after 2014 war, they just run out of cheeks to turn.

Back to main subject, I believe nothing weakened Pope Francis’s policies as much as his widely misunderstood position on this subject.

> he didn’t mean it as allow yourself to get killed.

You know, what happened on Easter right?

I do, according to christian doctrine Jesus sacrificed himself for humanity’s sins. That sacrifice wouldn’t be particularly meaningful if it came with expectation for everybody to follow through. As much as I am not a fan of this (or any other) religion, I’m pretty sure it’s not a suicide pact.

I think getting killed for your belief is exactly what Jesus was arguing for. It was also what all apostles did and the only cause for the next 300 years to be declared a saint.

Jesus' death was special, because he was without sins, he was the son of God (YMMV) and, because was walking around afterwards physically (i.e. capable of touching and eating, etc.) on earth. I am not sure, why you name it suicide, because he didn't killed himself, he got himself killed.

I do not think, that Jesus would defend "the agressor". But fighting in return is also not good, which is where "turning the other cheek" comes into play.

There's almost two millennia of counter arguments to the usual attempts to reframe Christianity as strictly "just suicide and turn the other cheek".

Suicide is a mortal sin, so I'm not sure, if we argue past each other.

> reframe Christianity

How is it reframing, when it is what it is all about? Can you elaborate about the counter arguments?

Of course dying is not the only method of worshiping God and promote the faith, but it is quite effective. And giving the other option is killing people it is definitely the preferred way.

Jesus pretty famously did allow himself to be killed

Yep, as a sacrifice. Using this as a justification for aggressive war against a christian nation is not only extremely intellectually dishonest, but against the doctrine as well.

That doesn't mean what people think its means, though.

(But it's not that the audience here cares ...)

Thanks for that comment, as it encouraged me to read a wikipedia article on the subject, which was very interesting.

Link for others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

You could educate the audience, rather than commenting like this. People are here to have curious conversations.

Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hmm, I meant that in an "it's off-topic" way but you're right, the wording comes across quite harsh.

It mostly does. There's a deeper meaning to it, but it's still also about nonviolence.

As with everything, it's open to interpretation, but you don't turn your other cheek expecting to be hit again; it's meant to signal defiance not resignation.

I guess, but "defiance" can mean anything, and the passage is telling you not to resist. It's about not participating in a violent conflict to begin with. It's definitely not "I f'ing dare you to try that again".