In the field of Metaphysics, violence is frowned upon, but according to the law of self-preservation in some instances it may be called for. Some of the great prophets waged wars in the name of God with the intention restoring the greater good of society. In modern day society, when and where is self-defence called for, or is it called for? Should we "turn the other cheek, or exchange an "eye for an eye"?

Makes sense, for in order to make any progress evolving spiritually in the third dimension, you gotta stay alive to be able to do this.


The "greater good of society" is very subjective and can vary from prophet to prophet, which often meant that what was good for one society wasn't necessarily good for another. No wonder why a whole lot of killing was done in the name of God.


I particularly like how in Anton Szandor LaVey's The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, this point is addressed:


IMHO, violence should only ensue if there is a violation of one's free will.

I answered maybe because as most people stand the chance that they can be backed against a wall is always there. If the options are fight or die, I would choose fight.

On the other hand I have spent my whole life, turning the other cheek to many times IMO, because I believe we can prevent violence in our lives first and then move to prevent violence as a whole in ever increasing circles of influence.

The problem with violence, is that it begets violence. I have had what you may call too many past life memories to see anything good come of it. It is ONLY to insure survival when there is no other choice, for self and others.

Yet, any propogation of violence is a step backward in that it decreases the probability of elliminating violence. In that sense, IMHO it is NEVER a means to any valid end other then a temporary reprieve from immediate death.

This does not mean I advocate perpetual equinamity and disspassion. I believe that the repression of natural passion begets violence maybe even outside of ourselves, since we are denying a natural energy that is ours to creatively channel.

By playing the saint, we may actually be pumping up the sinner. In addition, true occult empowerment can lead to channeling energies that would somwhere instigate violence, and transmuting them without repression or having to hold a face of Buddhic calm.

Compassion is at the heart of this, IMO. For compassion implies immersion into the forces that perverted become destructive, and integrating them from shadow to light.

Being insulted is not cause for violence. Revenge is not cause for violence. Somebody's government propaganda is not cause for violence, and neither is fear imposed by those who seek to gain from violence. If one finds oneself in a position where they or loved ones MUST be violently protected that is an alarm that they must do everything in their power to address the reasons behind this event manifesting in their lives.

Otherwise, violence spreads like a plague. To many, it is just too convenient...

I voted maybe because it truly depends on the circumstances. Most (not all) circumstances can be avoided without resorting to violence, having common sense helps in this!LOL But when you or your loved ones are faced with serious injury or death,...well violence is definitely necessary. Then we can think of the moral ideas after we have ether avoided or dealt with an attacker.

The idea of being a pacifist and not defending yourself or your loved ones is just as bad as attacking others!IMHO

With the majority of the world's people raised with a "dog eat dog" mentality, couple that with the present global economic downturn, and you have a recipe for violence on an unprecedented scale. More and more people of a metaphysical bent will be forced to confront this issue head on, sooner or later.

As a theosophist I was taught to turn the other cheek, and thought what is going to happen to me if confronted with violence. I spoke to my teachers truly concerned as it had been bothering me for a while. One teacher said always turn away unless someone is trying to harm you then you must protect yourself or your family. My other teacher he was a tough old Buddhist looked at me and said in a situation such as this you do not hesitate to fight back. We sometimes have to put aside our laws when faced with harm. It could be it is your karma to not stay there and take it. I asked what is the attacker's karma. he looked at me and said to get the shit kicked out of him. So I voted maybe.

“Being a Doormat” was not Jesus’ style, nor the style of his followers in New Testament times. He and they were compassionate, and they were non-violent, but they were not doormat quality. In fact, “turn the other cheek,” thoughtfully understood, actually encourages subversive, even dangerously subversive behavior.

* First, when Jesus uttered those words his topic was the avoidance of violence; so we should expect the instruction that follows to deal with ways to avoid violence, which is a different focus than instruction about submission.

* Second, Jesus and his disciples did not behave in subservient or unjustly cooperative ways toward secular or religious authorities.

* Third, the phrase “do not resist” is a poor English choice for the Greek wording Matthew used.

* Fourth, the physical event of being struck on the right cheek presents an interesting problem.

So lets look at this idea closer.

First,
the subject at hand was violent retaliation. “It was said, an eye for an eye.” That’s violence for violence. But Jesus would apparently have agreed with Gandhi, “An eye for an eye, and we all go blind.” So he says, “BUT I say unto you”, and then encourages a non-violent response. What we do not often notice, however, is that the non-violent response he suggests is not a passive response, and could in fact lead to more abuse.

Second,
Jesus himself was not submissive to the unjust or irrational use of authority. He set a very different example. He often publicly pointed out injustice or hypocrisy, and frequently irritated or even enraged “the powers that be.” It is not possible to imagine the real Jesus of history coaching other people in door-mat-ness. That was just not his way of thinking or operating.

Third,
the phrase “do not resist” sends a message very different from what the underlying Greek conveys. I dislike fussing about Greek words and translation problems, since the translations we have are extremely reliable. But there are a few places, and this is one, where we understand better if we translate better. This really should be rendered more like “do not retaliate violently,” or “do not get violent against”. Jesus was a resistant kind of person. He did not practice nor counsel non-resistance. He did, however, counsel non-violence.

Fourth,
imagine being struck on your right cheek. You probably get hit by the striker’s right hand, which means you get backhanded. Backhanding does not happen in a fair face-off. Backhanding is an insult, punishment, or just plain abuse. Back then it represented a clear situation of oppression or dominance. So you could 1) fight back (not smart), or 2) meekly take it, maybe with “Yes, Sir”.

An alternative “third way”:

Now Jesus suggests a third approach. Offer the other cheek. You are not fighting back, but neither are you meekly taking it. You are asking for more. You may get it or you may not, but either way you’ve made a point or two. You are not exactly what they think you are, and you know it; you are a person, and deserve more equal treatment and respect as a person; you are aware of the truth behind the fraud. You are amplifying awareness of, and insulting, their bullying behavior and the system that allows it.

Also this presents the idea of the cultural uses of the hand that being Right vs Left. The right hand is the clean hand in which you eat with, the left the one you wipe with. So talk about an insult in offering the left hand or, in this instance forcing the person to backhand you with their left brings disgrace on that person.

An interesting insight, MagUidhir. It's definitely in keeping with the image of Jesus as a political revolutionary that's emerging from the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran community.

If Jesus were to return at this point in time, would he be more of a Gandhi or a Che Guevara? Can't see his "turn the other cheek" routine working against TPTB. In fact, they have subverted the true meaning of this and are using it to quell dissent among the sheeple.