When we want to impose, denigrate and destroy, an ancient and primitive device is to call and label. In election time, nicknames and labels are multiplied. Today they are everywhere, and this time on the small and large screens of an unprecedented number of young and old Brazilians, as “never before seen in the history of this country”. Nicknames like “Chuchu”, “Nanico”, “Poste”, “Burro?y?bozo?Don’t you intend to go far beyond secular function?a curse, a caricature, a sin, doesn’t that mean that nicknames are completely devoid of materiality?”Big head”, “Big nose”, “Skeleton”, “toothpicks?and “well cap” yes, may refer to some outstanding or striking characteristic. However, would the nickname itself be a type of repeated harassment?Current Anglicanism that draws attention to the practice of young people, whose intention is to degrade, produce physical or psychological violence, cause pain and distress and, if possible, ridicule the nickname in the face of public sensitivity and hostility.
In the Sermon on the Mountain, Christ offers his correct interpretation of the law, as opposed to that of the Pharisees and scribes, this is important because it is not a conflict between Jesus and Moses. The conflict in this unity of the sermon is between the “Justice of God” and the “justice of the Pharisees and scribes”. Can they truly comply with the law?Christ submits to the examination of the interpretation that Jewish religious leaders have made of the Law, offering him an essential interpretation.
- It is in this context that Christ offers his interpretation of the sixth commandment: “You shall not kill.
- ” Jesus Christ points out that regarding this commandment.
- The interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees was limited to condemning the murder itself (Mt 5.
- 21).
- It recovers the essence of the sixth commandment.
- Which is the protection of life.
- Informing us that the logic of the transgression of the commandment is the desire to destroy the other.
- Here’s a basic hatred.
- “I tell you.
- However.
- That anyone [without reason] becomes angry with his brother will be subject to judgment; and whoever insults his brother will be judged by the court; and who to call him: Fool.
- He will be subjected to hell fire.
- ? (Mt 5.
- 22.
- ARA).
- In the original New Testament.
- What you have is this: “And whoever says to his brother: Raca.
- Will he be accused of the Sanhedrin? ?Career? it was an Aramaic word.
- An insult.
- An insult.
- ? Useless ?.
- When the other is equated with useless and despicable things.
- Is that like saying that? Is it worse than excrement? Or do we say a priori that his mother is a prostitute? Or when we use a term chucro to mean that we want him to be sexually abused.
- What do we want when we curse someone? Jesus Christ asks us to ask ourselves if.
- Cursing or insulting.
- What mobilizes us is the desire to destroy the other.
- “And who tells you.
- Mad.
- Are you a Hellfire Defender?” This is interesting.
- Because in Christ’s sermon there are more and more cases of judgment: the local court.
- Then the Sanhedrin.
- The Supreme Court of the Jews.
- And finally God.
- Who can condemn hell.
- There is yet another gradation: how do you destroy the other? Initially in us.
- Then externalizing us through language and attitudes.
- And finally.
- Destroying your honor and your reputation.
- The teaching of the Bible is that.
- Of course.
- There are cases where one can legitimately call someone “fool.
- ” and crazy? God does this.
- In many places in the Bible this is done legitimately.
- But in the interpretation offered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
- What we have is the intention of destroying the reputation.
- Destroying the honor.
- Destroying the name.
- The source from which the intention springs is decidedly contaminated.
- In short.
- Christ teaches that I can hate a person.
- In practical terms.
- Without committing murder.
- Didn’t he have a gun? or a “knife” I was not like the Brazilian Adélio.
- Who literally wielded the knife.
- But in the end.
- The same principle and the same logic that leads to murder at work here: a practical hatred.
- A wish that the other be hurt.
- Destroyed.
In our fundamental, fundamental self-justification movement, we tend to be innocent in the court of our conscience, while blaming the other. The scribes and Pharisees did. They dealt with the murder and even demanded (demanded) the killer’s trial. It was good. However, was it done in such a way that there was no confrontation with the evil, the evil that led to the homicides? And even less is this evil in themselves! Christ says that his justice was not maintained either in the local court or in the court of the Sanhedrin (composed of themselves), much less in the court of God. In the end, I didn’t kill my neighbor. But inside of me, I want you dead. Life would be better without him. I’ve already judged it. I’ve already condemned it. I myself have measured the scope of the law, I have done self-defense, I have sued and I have been a judge. Christ, in turn, “came to fulfill the entire Law,” whose basic idea is to fulfill and cover the entire surface, the entire extent. We have the idea of completeness, of taking the Law as a whole, as a whole. The justice of the Pharisees and scribes focused on an outward aspect and, in fact, ignored the essential principle.
In Brazilian civil laws, we have crimes against honor: slander, defamation and insult. We have damage to the image. Bullying is on the rise. The Internet is a fertile environment for such attitudes. In this electoral context, these practices have become widespread and trivial. In addition to these primitive nicknames for our childhood urges, we also have the “label. ” It is aggression, because of its place in culture, but can it be devoid of its concept, its roots? It can even be unknown, undefined, vague or diffuse to the person using it. Do some terms end up losing their original meaning and acquire a pejorative connotation? which is true even in Christianity. These derogatory terms are used irresponsibly to label political (and religious) opponents and with unfair generalizations. If we can, we should always help clarify what this term means. So, faced with labels like “racist”, “nazi”, “fascist”, “chauvinist”, “fundamentalist”, “homophobic”, “reactionary”, “prejudice”. It is always wise to ask the other party, for the sake of honesty, “What exactly does this label mean to you?” Undoubtedly, by using this category of labels, one can pass for a champion of morals, or a protagonist of the cultural debate, or a centurion who fights against barbarians, or a crusader who invests against the infidels? But can one also simply be a political fighter, irresponsibly or desperately using all manner of vile weapons, or someone who, after all, is nothing more than a hypocrite wielding the sword of the “politically correct”? . In honest debates? isn’t it seldom sacrificed in wars? it is necessary to clearly define the concepts used. And once the “label” is justified, ask, “Why are you using it in relation to me or a certain person?” Without defining the concepts, it ends with a simple aggression, and with this type of practice you do not go anywhere, in terms of honoring reality and celebrating the truth, which is, strictly speaking, what really liberates and promotes good .
It may be helpful to remember at this point that hatred does not usually come first. Hatred is usually preceded by something. When someone hates you, it is good to know that something has happened before. Feelings (pride, envy, etc. ), attitudes, and even preconceptions? The same happens when we hate someone. There is something that bothers us. And whenever something bothers us too much, it is worth asking why. Perhaps this reveals something important about us. No one is unanimous, not even Jesus Christ. There will always be someone who doesn’t like you. Just that some people are going to keep it inside? But some go further. These attacks are gratuitous or inappropriate for little reasons. They attack. How to deal with attack and aggression? It can be helpful to recognize that you are not responsible for the other person’s assault. He is on his knees. Your responsibility extends to your arm, your voice, your influence, your omission. You are responsible for your intentions and actions, whether they are good or bad. But the reaction and the aggression come from the other. Is his. The same happened with the scribes and Pharisees, as well as with other religious, in relation to Jesus Christ. In the end, the problem was not (and never was) Christ. The problem lies in their own evil hearts.
Finally, it should be remembered that there is a big difference between correcting the act, or the error, or lying. and the attitude of indefinitely tagging. Some parents teach their children this bad behavior and they grow up repeating it in life. Some examples: The son misses a test question and the father says, “Are you stupid?” The son does not follow an order: “You are a trickster; Are you disobedient? The son is doing something stupid 😕 You suck; Are you worth nothing? The child does not get up early or does not do well in school 😕 You are useless? (“career”, empty). Instead of good discipline, just destroy. It’s just a lot of anger. It can also be a phrase that you cannot contradict. What do I want to help my son or daughter? Does this unhappy or bad act define you? Perhaps, on the contrary, one could have said: “You should have been more attentive here to this question of proof. ” Or: “You didn’t take the recommendation I gave you seriously. Can I remember what we agreed to? “You didn’t put your shoe away, like I asked you to do last night. ” Anyway, when I stretch the elastic to the point of reducing a person to something that denigrates them, in such a way that I define them emphatically and conscientiously, perhaps I do not know how to be contradictory I cannot get frustrated I cannot do it justice to the point that it really bothers me. This is the heart of intolerance, in the most reprehensible sense of the concept. It may be that, when the Great Weaver turns the “wheel of time”, I burn my tongue, what about me? Severe justice? it was no better than that of the hypocritical Pharisee, whom Christ condemned in his penetrating and confusing sermon.