6 ms·

I'll probably get flamed for this, but this story reminds me of good ol' Proverbs 25:21,22! If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty

by pawn 11y ago

I'll probably get flamed for this, but this story reminds me of good ol' Proverbs 25:21,22! If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Don't worry about the flames: Matthew 5:10-12 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
- maqr 11y ago
  As long as we're ignoring the coming inferno... The TL;DR for this post is really this: https://i.imgur.com/3vN06Zz.png https://i.imgur.com/3vN06Zz.png
bcook 11y ago
I'd rather just give him water & food while otherwise ignoring his attitude, simply because it is a logical way to defuse the situatuon. I see no need for heaping coals on his head or the promise of someone rewarding me. Regardless of my misinterpretation, I enjoy the passage. :)
- mdip 11y ago
  What you've stated in your first sentence is a perfect interpretation IMHO. Providing kindness in response to evil diffuses the problem. Some translations adjust that verse contextually to read "Heaping hot coals of shame". The resultant behavior of said evil person, however, can go either way, making "Heaping hot coals" an apt description of a very common (in my life, majority) outcome to that behavior. As in the story, the customer becomes exasperated as the author continues to respond with kindness. Some people like to treat others like crap (especially others who have a job that involves "serving them, the customer") because it allows them to assert power over the other person. I'm not talking about the occasional bad day "taking it out on someone else" and enjoying it, but the kind of person who has to do this all the time to feel good. Those people positively lose their shit when you respond with kindness. In that scenario, you've accidentally put them in a spot of having to admit that you might just be "the better person", so they escalate in hopes that you'll crack. I find the bible most interesting for that latter bit, though. I was brought up in a church that regularly told us what to do but gave only "Because God says so" as the reason. I grew up and left the church entirely as a result. Later in life I was frustrated when I discovered that the advice is usually followed up with "and here's the earthly outcome you can expect if you do this" along with "the Lord will reward you (because He said so)".
  - bcook 11y ago
    I worked as a waiter as a teen and I learned that, almost compulsively, some people must be a jerk in those situations. Personally, I found it best to feel sorry for them (rather than anger, if I must choose an emotion) but mostly just let them vent, not taking it personally. Sometimes they are trying to actually hurt your feelings on a personal level and it might be logical to aggressively inform them of their hurtful actions, but even then... letting them bother you is a mistake. My major complaint is that the passage seems to insinuate that you must "win" the situation with the jerk, which I think is selfish. The hardest choice, perhaps impossible, is knowing when "winning" (making him face what he is doing) the encounter would truly benefit the jerk. I really liked your response. Thank you.
    - simplify 11y ago
      It's certainly not about "winning". God said vengeance is His. If heaping coals was vengeance, wouldn't that mean we ourselves apply vengeance, albeit indirectly, by being nice to our enemies? Wouldn't that mean the motivation for our acts of kindness is corrupted by the burning desire for revenge? These problems cause others to find a different interpretation, putting the hot coals in a good light, instead of a "vengeful" one. Here is a short overview on the topic: http://prumc.blogspot.com/2009/04/heap-burning-coals.html http://prumc.blogspot.com/2009/04/heap-burning-coals.html
CWuestefeld 11y ago
No need for flames. Even those of us who don't believe ought to be able to accept wise words and parables. Along those lines, I'd like to offer a link to Walter Wink's Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way. There's something to glean here, even if you don't believe in Jesus. Quoting from http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm (where there's a good bit more on this theme) Turn the Other Cheek "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but "if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz." But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7). A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ("If anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one mile..."). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation. Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such "cheeky" behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating." EDIT: formatting
mdip 11y ago
I quoted the exact same verse in my response and was similarly concerned how it would be taken in this forum (having been the guy who generally rolled my eyes when people quoted the bible). Regardless of ones opinion of the bible, that verse is one that I started living by 20 years ago. Nothing is 100% reliable, and this bit of wisdom is no exception, but when applied properly the results have continually surprised me. I wasn't a Christian when it was shared with me (I was somewhat hostile if I'm being honest with myself), but I credit the effectiveness of that one tiny bit of wisdom with my discovery that my view of Christians was unfairly colored by a vocal group of people who's real problem was unrelated to faith/religion, it just became an enabler for them to exert power and gain ego. You see it with every kind of group from Social Justice to Gluten Avoidance. There's always some collection of douche-bags that "become the label" with which everyone else is judged.
jqm 11y ago
"heap burning coals on his head" wff? if that's the endgame is I'm not giving anyone water ever again.
seivan 11y ago
It's like from the opposite of Sun Tzu's book and still not. :-)

by pawn 11y ago

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

Don't worry about the flames: Matthew 5:10-12 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

maqr 11y ago
As long as we're ignoring the coming inferno... The TL;DR for this post is really this: https://i.imgur.com/3vN06Zz.png https://i.imgur.com/3vN06Zz.png

bcook 11y ago

I'd rather just give him water & food while otherwise ignoring his attitude, simply because it is a logical way to defuse the situatuon. I see no need for heaping coals on his head or the promise of someone rewarding me. Regardless of my misinterpretation, I enjoy the passage. :)

mdip 11y ago
What you've stated in your first sentence is a perfect interpretation IMHO. Providing kindness in response to evil diffuses the problem. Some translations adjust that verse contextually to read "Heaping hot coals of shame". The resultant behavior of said evil person, however, can go either way, making "Heaping hot coals" an apt description of a very common (in my life, majority) outcome to that behavior. As in the story, the customer becomes exasperated as the author continues to respond with kindness. Some people like to treat others like crap (especially others who have a job that involves "serving them, the customer") because it allows them to assert power over the other person. I'm not talking about the occasional bad day "taking it out on someone else" and enjoying it, but the kind of person who has to do this all the time to feel good. Those people positively lose their shit when you respond with kindness. In that scenario, you've accidentally put them in a spot of having to admit that you might just be "the better person", so they escalate in hopes that you'll crack. I find the bible most interesting for that latter bit, though. I was brought up in a church that regularly told us what to do but gave only "Because God says so" as the reason. I grew up and left the church entirely as a result. Later in life I was frustrated when I discovered that the advice is usually followed up with "and here's the earthly outcome you can expect if you do this" along with "the Lord will reward you (because He said so)".
- bcook 11y ago
  I worked as a waiter as a teen and I learned that, almost compulsively, some people must be a jerk in those situations. Personally, I found it best to feel sorry for them (rather than anger, if I must choose an emotion) but mostly just let them vent, not taking it personally. Sometimes they are trying to actually hurt your feelings on a personal level and it might be logical to aggressively inform them of their hurtful actions, but even then... letting them bother you is a mistake. My major complaint is that the passage seems to insinuate that you must "win" the situation with the jerk, which I think is selfish. The hardest choice, perhaps impossible, is knowing when "winning" (making him face what he is doing) the encounter would truly benefit the jerk. I really liked your response. Thank you.
  - simplify 11y ago
    It's certainly not about "winning". God said vengeance is His. If heaping coals was vengeance, wouldn't that mean we ourselves apply vengeance, albeit indirectly, by being nice to our enemies? Wouldn't that mean the motivation for our acts of kindness is corrupted by the burning desire for revenge? These problems cause others to find a different interpretation, putting the hot coals in a good light, instead of a "vengeful" one. Here is a short overview on the topic: http://prumc.blogspot.com/2009/04/heap-burning-coals.html http://prumc.blogspot.com/2009/04/heap-burning-coals.html

CWuestefeld 11y ago

No need for flames. Even those of us who don't believe ought to be able to accept wise words and parables. Along those lines, I'd like to offer a link to Walter Wink's Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus' Nonviolent Way. There's something to glean here, even if you don't believe in Jesus. Quoting from http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm (where there's a good bit more on this theme) Turn the Other Cheek "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but "if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz." But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7). A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ("If anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one mile..."). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation. Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such "cheeky" behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating." EDIT: formatting

mdip 11y ago

I quoted the exact same verse in my response and was similarly concerned how it would be taken in this forum (having been the guy who generally rolled my eyes when people quoted the bible). Regardless of ones opinion of the bible, that verse is one that I started living by 20 years ago. Nothing is 100% reliable, and this bit of wisdom is no exception, but when applied properly the results have continually surprised me. I wasn't a Christian when it was shared with me (I was somewhat hostile if I'm being honest with myself), but I credit the effectiveness of that one tiny bit of wisdom with my discovery that my view of Christians was unfairly colored by a vocal group of people who's real problem was unrelated to faith/religion, it just became an enabler for them to exert power and gain ego. You see it with every kind of group from Social Justice to Gluten Avoidance. There's always some collection of douche-bags that "become the label" with which everyone else is judged.

jqm 11y ago

"heap burning coals on his head" wff? if that's the endgame is I'm not giving anyone water ever again.

seivan 11y ago

It's like from the opposite of Sun Tzu's book and still not. :-)