>>518886752
>Oh that again, you aggressively pretending not to understand customs of proprietary conduct under Roman law doesn't make your argument correlate with reality on this particular matter
>Back then in Rome if a man struck you it was first with the left hand, turning the other cheek forces them to use their right hand if they should wish to strike again
>Under Roman pretext striking a man once in anger can be forgiven but to do so twice opens you up for lawsuit and prosecution, as you now have to stand before a perfect and justify your actions against a man.
>It also carries another cultural roman significance, that to strike a man with your right hand can only be done to a class equal, so if a nobleman gives in to his anger and strikes you upon the "other" cheek, he is(whether he likes it or not) is calling you his equal on the world stage.
>So to strike a poor hobo as a noble word would spread that you are quick to anger and would find yourself mucking it up in the mud with the servile class, a highly embarrassing act that comes with no honor, as you should be directing any physical punishment through your own servants, not by your own hand.
>A nobleman of education acts with self control, not with impulse
>and if your enemy takes your coat give them your other one
>instructs his followers to be non violent
>never personally hurt anyone in the gospels
if you read the bible with an open mind you will come to the conclusion that it's a cuck manual for pacifists and weaklings