I think Christianity has a fundamental problem that is somewhat apparent in the Protestant/Catholic divide. It has to do with "turning the other cheek." Warning, I know I am not really qualified to delve into something as controversial as Catholicism vs. Protestantism but perhaps you will read me out anyway. I decided at one point that since early Christians were pacifists towards people of equal or higher classes (Christian pacifism is really a very complex issue; they were clearly willing in most cases to deal with criminals and hostile foreigners), and western traditions often viewed celibacy as evidence of a higher nature, the act of turning the other cheek was not supposed to lead to material success -- quite the opposite. In Protestantism I think we may have begun to see, among other things, a trend towards a more materially active kind of spirituality. And here is where the problem started to arise. I think a lot of modern liberal Christians (and also the SJWs, whom I view as a form of secular Christians) are confused about something. The concepts underlying celibacy and having a higher, unwordly nature are alien or unknown to them but the concept of pacifism and turning the other cheek is not unknown to them. So, they think that turning the other cheek is supposed to have good results for them, materially, in their life, when in fact it is not only the case that it doesn't have good results, it probably never had good results in the material sense. I don't think these groups understand that. They believe that everyone is supposed to be nice to them and that the biggest victim wins, I think this is probably a misunderstanding of one of the social functions that turning the other cheek played.
You should stick to shorter syllogisms in your thinking and delivery. Your statement supra looks like a plate of spaghetti and meatballs thrown against the wall to see if anything will stick (?).
The issue of the division between Catholicism and Protestantism is a matter of rebellion during the age of Henry the 8th and also Martin Luther. Separately they would have each failed. But being that they each acted around the same time but for different reasons, European Protestantism was born. It was inevitable because the Catholic Church was simply growing way too big to govern by one man or one college of cardinals.
Jesus was a pacifist during the Roman occupation of Judea. History has shown us that it was useless for the Jews to rebel against Rome. When they tried it, after about 3 strikes the Romans sacked and burned Jerusalem to the ground, like the Greeks sacked and burned Troy. So Jesus was right -- for them resistance was futile.
Jesus knew that if they didn't stop fighting each other and the Romans they would lose everything ... including the Temple.
The Church is one Body, and consists of many members, individuals. In the aggregate, the whole Church is a Sacrifice to God, like the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, if we bring our suffering, poverty, beatings and mockeries into the body of the Church, by which we are exposed because of our meekness in the face of the evil world, all these our sufferings are combined into one piggy bank together with the sufferings of Jesus Christ Himself. And the reward from God will be to us all, to the whole Body of the Church, when the resurrection of the righteous will come. If we receive an individual reward from God now, it deprives us of a contribution to the common bank of the suffering of the Body of the Church, and we can lose our reward in the resurrection, because we did not participate in the common sorrows with the rest of the Body of Christ. Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: (Colossians 1:24) It seems to me that the English translation does not correspond to the Greek text: Now I rejoice in suffering for you and in my flesh I fill the lack of Christ's sorrow for His Body, which is the Church In my opinion, Protestantism is completely devoid of this understanding: we will receive a reward all together - those who have died and those who will survive until the time of the Second Coming - if we turned the other cheek to those who beat us, and we did not demand a material retribution from God in our present life.
I think a huge difference between Protestant Churches and Catholic Churches is this: Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy." For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out. http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm Ask yourself a question... Since when did Church become Building(s) and since when did Church move out of individual homes? Ever since homes got ransacked for having a meeting of believers meet? And another question. What occurs if the Church does not file for tax exemption with the 501c3 clause? Then they might be able to speak within their Congregation with more 'freedom'.
We learn to be 'submissive' when we are in places that teach submissiveness towards those who are in Government. And Government is 'head' of Society, so I guess, the general public is being 'backed' by Government and hence, the turning the other cheek to members of Society. The common notion is that if Government finds those persons right enough to be 'free', then there is nothing to be leery about concerning them. A positive 'thing' I find about North Korea, although many speak against North Korea, is their Rule on 'Propaganda material'. I could be using the wrong words but in North Korea the idea of taking Government or North Korean 'materials', for personal use is against their National Law. And to this law, they have stressed countless times. So if I were to visit North Korea, for me to 'take' a North Korean 'material', maybe even an invitation card to a 'Government function', would be a breaking to one of their National Laws. I should be aware of the National Laws before I visit. Not only an invitation card, but maybe even their 'local' drinking water. For me to take their 'water' with me in a plastic bottle, might be law breaking. Although these rules might come across as extremely unnecessary and over done, if you stop long enough to know what the rules are and are willing enough to abide by their rules, then there really shouldn't be any problem. It's the time needed to 'know' their rules, usually done independently and through independent research, that many find unnecessary and 'over done'. Not too many want to 'study' before going on vacation. Many think a vacation is a time to put your feet up and bask in the sun or the snow. But not all Countries are welcoming to such feet being put up and basking in the sun or snow and at the same time breaking their Home National way(s) of living. As for those Countries which offer 'freedoms' to enjoy and have a good time, they also are providing the freedoms to the residents to 'defend and protect' their own space and their own respectability grounds, also. So if a vacationer oversteps a resident's personal space or respectability ground, that resident has the right to 'defend and protect' against the vacationer's way(s) of enjoying and having a good time while they are being 'unchecked' and/or 'unmonitored'. Examples being those of other Countries using 'firearms' illegally. And how African Elephants are being killed for their 'tusks' by 'visitors'. Question: Have you ever wondered where all the 'junk' as far as trash and recycled computers and gadgets and appliances, etc... get stored after they are disposed of? They are shipped around the World into other Country's to fill up some of their 'unused' spaces. Do we really think that these Countries, with their monetary associations, would be able to have so much 'junk' for and by themselves? There's a lot more to life than personal 'things'. I think the September Issue of Harper's Bazarre is in that.. So we learn to be submissive to Government because they are supposed to know what they are doing with and to their Governed General Public. In the U.S it's called The Second Amendment. A well regulated Governed Society....[first] being necessary to [for the procuring of] the security of a free State, [whereas in such], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Hence, freedom to bear arms. 2 fold: To keep security, the right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed. And to maintain the security of the Free State in which there is well regulation(s) to and within the Governed Public, the freedom to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
However, in a non well regulated Governed society, or Militia, this Amendment might not be applicable in all and any form(s) and/or ways. So, within a non well regulated Governed Society, or Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, may not apply. The right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the first clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Militia is all bodies aged enough years to #1: legally join the U.S armed Forces #2: All bodies abled enough to defend Citizen/Constitution rights regardless of-if employed by The U.S, e.g., professional soldier. If you take the commas away, it would read as: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." If you add commas and a period elsewhere, it would read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary, to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you put the second part first and add a period, it would read: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [in] A well regulated Militia. Being necessary to the security of a free State" Remember that when this was ratified, in 1791, life in the U.S had a human population of (around) 4,049,227 persons. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/us-population-1776-date/ I'm not sure if Princeton University sponsors this but according to this, the population percentage increase was exactly the same for many consecutive years. It would probably have been easier to keep a well order, regulated free State with around 4 million persons, than with over 325 million persons, I would presume. The United States experienced major waves of immigration during the colonial era, the first part of the 19th century and from the 1880s to 1920. Many immigrants came to America seeking greater economic opportunity, while some, such as the Pilgrims in the early 1600s, arrived in search of religious freedom. From the 17th to 19th centuries, hundreds of thousands of African slaves came to America against their will. https://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965 The illogical 'excuse' against the U.S. for slavery. From the 17th to 19th centuries, hundreds of thousands of African slaves came to America against their will. Even if U.S and/or Americans brought 'slaves', why is there never any question as to who 'were selling' the slaves? It's through these sorts of 'false lines' of blame that many corruptions arise. Another 'false blame': 'The U.S was never founded upon Christian principles, values or The Holy Bible'. Another 'false blame': 'The Establishment/separation clause of Church and State was ratified to keep Church life out of State life'.
They may believe in victimhood, and equate it to their intellectual enlightenment. However, they also want an 'eye for an eye'. And, they drew first blood.
That's actually an interesting analysis. It's not often that I see an insightful perspective and am somewhat impressed, but that is the case here.
I think the concept of "turning the other cheek" doesn't necessarily apply to righteous acts (including done in the will of God), for example saving the lives of other people. I know that's not really the primary point in your OP though.
