text:
Talk:Turning the other cheek

Gandhi
A new contribution adds: "Others counter this teaching can serve justice when used as the philosophy behind passive resistance as practiced by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King which the practitioner of this tactic turns other cheek in an effort to turn the aggressors' violence against them."

 * That's just not true. Gandhi 'never' advocated non-violence, despite his false claims to the contrary. Any reading of his full writings reveals that he publicly and repeatedly advocated the use of violence, which he knew would include killings, to advance his cause. He deliberately set up resistance which would provoke and cause beatings and killings, and he stated that hoped that the one-sided attacks of the British against the Indians would cause a lot of public outcry and sympathy. That's not non-violence; that a cynical manipulation of the stupid masses to use beatings and deaths to further one's political goals. (Goals that, as we now know, led to a massive war.) As for King, he publicly stated that he was not a pacifist, and that black people had the right to use force to defend themselves if they were attacked. Many Christians may have later come to interpret these men as following "turn the other cheek", but neither did so in practice. RK 01:26, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm not following your statements. It sounds like you are saying that Gandhi advised his followers to perform non-violent actions in such a context as to lead to them experiencing violence, with the purpose of the violence being publicized. Are you saying that (if I even have the first part correct) by advocating non-violence which was likely or certain to lead to violence, you therefore claim he did not advocate non-violence, but rather violence ? I can't quite follow this. If he is urging the soldiers to shoot, then he is advocating violence. If he is urging the victims to be shot, then he is advocating non-violence. No ? -- ll

 * You understand me correctly. He was urging Indians to piss off the British, in the hope that the British would beat and kill many Indians. Gandhi then used this to promote his political agenda. This is the creation of violence for political purposes. Gandhi understood the psychology of the European and American public; causing the killing of his own followers made many people more sympathetic to the Indian cause. Still some people (like me) are very uncomfortable with this. There is a reason that Gandhi has many published critics; this is one of them. RK

Ok, but, isn't this the classic method of non-violent change ? Perform non-violence in such a way as to make public the violence against you ? That is to say, even if person X advocates going out and laying down in front of bulldozers, I don't think we can fairly say that person X advocates crushing people with bulldozers.

This contribution "The Other Cheek " here says that the right example of 'the other cheek' would be the Dandi March (or the Salt Satyagraha). Violence or Non-Violence by the other party is not in your control, but you surely can organize a defiance to show your point of view not with an itent of taking advantage of the law but breaking it to a minimal extent that a note can be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.124.73 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 * If a person says "Go out and incite British troops to mass murder Indians", and they do this repeatedly, and then some people do get killed by British troops, then yes, it is fair to say that the original person is guilty of inciting violence. I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Repeating the word "peace" one thousands times in a row doesn't make one peaceful, especially when one is promoting violence, and this promotion actually results in massive casulties.  Unless you have some different definition of the word "peace".... RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Especially if person X's major agenda is to stop the crushing of people with bulldozers, and he is advocating we lay in front of them so that we'll get crushed and the world will see how awful it is (b/c person X is going to make sure reporters are on hand), we can hardly blame the crushing of people on X; X is quite on the other side of the battle between crushers and crushees. I mean, person X isn't being terribly sneaky about it, I think, because really, this is the classic political way to use non-violence against the violent. It sounds to me like you want to charge X with the advocacy of violence. But in the argument, over whether it is good or evil to crush people with bulldozers, in my scenario, X seems squarely on the side of crushing people is evil. -ll

 * I don't know how to make this any clearer. Gandhi did promote violence, and he admitted it.  He admitted that he hoped to provoke British troops to hurt and kill many Indians, in order to garner public sympathy.  One can argue whether this was good or bad, wise or unwise, but to argue against the basic facts is bizarre. RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That was far too wordy, and not on the point exactly. My point (or most hope of one, I think) is that if I walk into a Nazi concentration camp, knowing full well that I will be vivisected, it is not morally just to condemn me for the practice of vivisection; the blame for doing the vivisection is not at all upon my shoulders; it remains entirely upon the shoulders of the vivisectionist. If I advise others to march to the doors with protest signs, probably to vivisectional doom, the responsibility for the vivisection still does not devolve upon me; that is too much like blaming the victim. It is like saying to the mayor, I have kidnapped your people, you must pay up or it will be your fault that I shoot the people. That, to me, is a deep misunderstanding of responsibility. Even if the Mayor knows that by not paying up, it will certainly lead to me shooting the hostage, yet still, he does not receive some of my blame for the shooting; I (as the kidnapper) still am the one who chooses to shoot, and the blame remains with me entirely. At least, so I would argue. {I've made a mess shifting around thru different examples; I hope you can follow what I'm trying to say.} -- ll

 * I think your analogy is too far off base to be useful here. Your comparison is not a good analogue. RK

Saying Gandhi didn't advocate "nonviolence" limits the definition of nonviolence. Nonviolence has many facets, but I think a core function of nonviolence deals with dignity. Gandhi admired the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna spends considerable time teaching Arjuna that he must go into war and kill his relatives. The message is non-action is the worst possible answer - far worse than violence. I think often people confuse nonviolence with non-action and they are profoundly different. Violence is closer to nonviolence than nonviolence is to non-action. A famous passage from Gandhi has someone writing him, "A bully in my town slapped me and I was embarrassed, What should I have done?" Gandhi responded "You should have slapped him back, but the real question is why did you let yourself feel embarrassed?" --ElgertS 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Gandhi should have used pistols to shoot back at British rather than use Satyagraha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.0.156 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

An article here "The Other Cheek? Some Cheek this!" takes the example of Dandi March (Salt Satyagraha) to be the right example for this quotation. It mentions that showing the other cheek tantamounts to defiance and taking loss rather than causing loss. Non Violence is about not causing loss by force. Loss by willingness is something else. The article says - Just walking up to the break the unfair law, not to take advantage of the law but only as a form of protest was a unique idea and the courage of people engaged in it was exemplary. It does not take courage to be a King and engage your army with the Goliath. It takes courage to be a subject and take up the issue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.124.73 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Defenders of the literal interpretation
Some have defended against this criticism by emphasizing pacifisim, arguing that this teaching can serve justice when used as the philosophy behind passive resistance as practiced by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., in which the practitioner of this tactic turns the other cheek in an effort to turn the aggressors' violence against himself.

 * This is just not true. King never preached "turn the other cheek", and he stated that Negros (now called African-Americans) have the right to use physical force to defend their lives. This was a point he stressed after his famous meeting with Malcom X.  And while I am not a fan of the early or mid-life Malcom X, he was absolutely correct to say that Negros must not lie down and allow white racists to beat them and murder them.  Martin Luther King, Jr., did not take the murder of anyone lightly.  As for Gandhi, he publicly incited the mass murder of Indians in order to arouse public sympathy around the world.  This is not "turning the other cheek".  Only Gandhi's most syncophantic apologists can see promoting mass-beatings and mass-killings as "turning the other cheek." RK 22:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that under Roman law it was illegal to strike a servent more than once. Is this true, and does it have anything to do with the origins of the expression?--71.141.109.130 23:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

RK., may I ask why you feel so strongly against Gandhi? Please provide rebuttals to II's cogent reasoning and illustrative examples to your message above, or no one is going to take you seriously. 68.40.50.73 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you familiar with Gandhi's pro-violent statements, or his demands that all of Europe's Jews kill themselves in order to shame the Nazis? I am basing my criticism of him on his actual statements, and not on the silly movie which whitewashed his entire life. RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi did get his passive resistance philosophy from this. Leo Tolstoy derived his pacifist philosophy from the Sermon on the Mount and Gandhi was influenced heavily by Tolstoy on the subject.TheTruth12 03:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi was a prolific writer and presented a complex message that can easily be taken in ways that might seem problematic. The toolset he puts forward operates in different ways depending on the situation, the time available, the players involved. Most of his work is ignored, because its not controversial or particular exciting, as it spends enormous amounts of time and energy promoting community and self reliance. You object to his illustrative words on how to deal with the persecution of the Jews under the Nazis. Who are the players? The Jews who lack the capacity to organize and defend themselves in an effective manner and the Nazis who harbor nothing but contempt for the Jews. The Nazis' tactic was to systematically dehumanize the Jews and to scapegoat them for all the troubles that befall the German people. Gandhi's position was an extreme portrait to illustrate you can't allow them to dehumanize you. Once you are no longer human to them, they cannot relate to you and cannot empathize your plight. He wasn't presenting options that would make this somewhat better, you had to solve the problem completely with whatever power you had at your disposal. Many in Germany knew what was happening to the Jews, not in detail, but the persecution was open and constant, and their decision to do nothing is far worse in my mind. Following the war, the effect of the holocaust was to make Jewish racism no longer acceptable in U.S. public dialog at all levels. Prior to the war, this was quite common, such as Father Coughlin's extremely popular radio program. Recall Henry Ford's anti-Jew position as well or that of Charles Lindberg. After the holocaust this was no longer possible and this altered mood was a major motivator for the Civil Rights movement to accelerate the Gandhi's tactics to take advantage of the new atmosphere. It also had a positive impact on the Zionist movement. Gandhi's point, I believe, was the Jews could not effectively stage a military response to the Nazis, but they couldn't just let themselves be systematically slaughtered like sheep and silently be culled from future existence. The dignity of who you are extends beyond yourself. This debate is far more expansive. What about Secretary of State Albright, whose family converted to Christianity to save themselves. Not judging their decision, but the question is powerful - is it right to sacrifice your family's cultural history in order to blend in with the dominant culture and avoid persecution? Historically this is a major tactic of conquering powers: capture, enslave, intermarry and eventually snuffing out the culture of the people they occupy. Witness Sudan today. Remember there were twelve tribes of Hebrews and in the end only Judah retained its cultural identity into and beyond occupation. --ElgertS 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another interpretation.
There is another interpretation of this passage. The pharisees and religious leaders of the day had twisted the old testament passage instructing the magistrate (judge) to take "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as court-administered punishment, into justifications for personal revenge. Jesus was countering the misconception of the law. Also, to "strike the cheek" meant to severely insult someone - not to physically hit them. Jesus was urging his followers to ignore insults and not start fights.

 * Could you please provide a source? Which group has this interpretation? RK

 * The underlying greek means an open handed strike or slap. This is an insult even to this day in the mid-east. Jesus was talking about vengence and that is only for the LORD to hand out. The pharisees et al. were advocating making vengence a personal issue with "an eye for an eye" clearly against what God had told them in the OT writings. It was not supporting pacifism in any measure except when withstanding an insult. There are numerous OT and NT passages that support that a Christian or Jew can certainly practive defense of self and of family. Only taken OUT of context can you get pacifism.

If Jesus was really commanding his followers to submit to crime, why did he command them to take a short sword with them? He knew they were packing heat, and did not discourage it. For a Christian who believes the Bible to be infallible, Christ could not have commanded his followers to take a sword with them for protection, and then turn around and tell them to let a common criminal beat them to death for a few bucks. In the old testament self-defense, even resulting in the death of an attacker, was justified. When Peter struck the high priest's servant with a sword in defense of Jesus, Jesus did not command Peter not to resist an evil person, but told him that it was his "cup" to die that way, and that he could have called 10,000 angels to his defense.

I think this interpretation merits at least a mention, so I'm going to add it as an alternative mention. If everyone comes to a concensus against it, I'm sure you will have no trouble removing it.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said "do not resist the evildoer?" just curious. TheTruth12 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus wanted people to submit to crime and his words are quite often bold and provocative. In the mention of the swords, he clearly states they don't each need one, just a few was sufficient. What does this mean is a very interesting question. If they all are packing heat, they are ready for armed conflict should it take place even against a group of soldiers. If they just have a few, it becomes less clear. You begin to wonder if the swords are meant to be used at all, or perhaps are there for another reason. Surely bandits are less likely to rob them if they see a sword or two in the group. I don't see Jesus as someone who would ever back down in a situation, but he also clearly shows his preference (very possibly exclusively) to not using force to resolve conflicts. --ElgertS 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And an interpretation as a challenge to the striker.
Walter Wink, of Spirituality & Health, has it right I think.

Here is my analysis, written before reading his.

An alternate interpretation of the scripture.

Background:

At this time, a thief would have a hand chopped off. People ate from a common plate of food in the middle of the table. One used one hand to wipe after defecating and the OTHER hand to take food from the common plate. Thus a man with one hand was not welcome to eat with others. Usually, the eating hand was the right hand.

Thus if one were struck on the right cheek by the back of someone's right hand, it was an insult and a provocation.

What happens if one turns the OTHER cheek, presumably to be struck with the OTHER hand?

I believe if you were struck AGAIN with the OTHER hand, it would be a grievous insult and a major provocation.

This leads me to conclude that the gesture of turning the other cheek is a challenge to the striker. It says, "Look you jerk, you hit me. I'm raising the stakes. If you hit me again with the OTHER hand, you will demonstrate that you are a major jerk, unworthy of any admiration or status."

This is thus, a non-violent act intended to SHAME the other person, perhaps even into backing down and apologizing. It is good social policy since it leaves everyone involved with their teeth and eyes intact.

Does that make sense to you?

Similarly, the act of offering your shirt as well as your coat leaves you naked in the street. This was a big deal in those days, and even today. Again it challenges and shames the other person.

 * And it does not promote pacifism nor rule out self-defense.

If you are nonviolent to challenge or shame someone, are you not still nonviolent? TheTruth12 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it must mean more than merely to challenge, because he goes on about giving the coat as well... the true message is, perhaps, that what harm is inflicted upon you in this life will be returned to the inflicter in the next!! Pacific PanDeist 07:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"If you are nonviolent to challenge or shame someone, are you not still nonviolent?" My answer is yes, but not to shame them rather to make their harmful actions clear to them and convince them to stop. You want to engage their conscience to a harm they are conducting that they have convinced themselves is allowed. Nonviolence places a higher value on personal dignity that almost anything else. You must defend your dignity and you must maintain and defend the dignity of others, even your opponent. --ElgertS 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

historical origins
i think that unless citations are added, this section should be removed. Where is this coming from? what evidence do we have that Jews before Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, and what book says that Jesus didn't originally come up with it?TheTruth12 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is commonly assumed that this teaching originated with Jesus, but some hold that it is better conceived of as an exaggerated extrapolation of previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Hebrew Bible." It doesn't say anything like this in the Hebrew Bible. Not even close. This sentence is bull. TheTruth12 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is also thought to be possible that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of the Pharisee Hillel the Elder who is famously quoted as describing the Golden Rule to be an effective summation of the Torah; a description quite similar to Jesus' words in Matthew 7:12, though stated in the negative ("do not do unto others what you would not want done to you") rather than the affirmative ("do unto others as you would have others do unto to you")." This paragraph has nothing to do with "turn the other cheek." it doesnt belong in this article.TheTruth12 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

literal interpretation
Here is my opinion - I think it is odd that people can read "do not resist evil" and think that it means something other than not resisting evil. And even go on to say that interpreting it to mean what it clearly says plain as day in blunt language is taking it out of context. People go to great lengths to pretend that it means something other than the obvious interpretation.TheTruth12 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation.
It means you have to be a vesel for the wrath of others because that's a kind of good. If you are stong and their anger is absorbed by you then you have done good to this world.

Besides, do you really think someone that is supposed to be KILLED because people HATE HIM would have a different philosophy of life?

Therefore, it's "literal" in the way of helping others calm down and at the same time it's the very thing that explains in a way - or another way - why he gave his life.

This is interesting and rather close to the nonviolent perspective, which intends to take negative energy (anger, rage) both from yourself and your opposition and channel it in a positive manner to beneficially impact all parties involved. Another goal of nonviolence is to provoke violent reactions out into the open where people can see "institutionalized" violence for what it is rather than accepting it. --ElgertS 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical origins section - total nonsense
I am removing "It is commonly assumed that this teaching originated with Jesus, but some hold that it is better conceived of as an exaggerated extrapolation of previous Jewish ethical teachings in the Hebrew Bible." because, first of all, wherever it originated, Jesus is the one who said it and made it famous. 2nd of all, it is not an exaggeration of the Hebrew Bible, because "eye for an eye" is almost the complete opposite of nonviolence. It would make just as much sense to say genocide is an exaggeration of the Hebrew Bible. As for this part: "It is also thought to be possible that Jesus was influenced by the teachings of the Pharisee Hillel the Elder who is famously quoted as describing the Golden Rule to be an effective summation of the Torah; a description quite similar to Jesus' words in Matthew 7:12, though stated in the negative ("do not do unto others what you would not want done to you") rather than the affirmative ("do unto others as you would have others do unto to you")." it has absolutely nothing to do with turn the other cheek.

I do not know the motive of the person who inserted this section twice, but it is clearly something other than improving the article, because he writes about Matthew 7:12 when the article is about Matthew 5:39. So please do not insert this section again, as it contains false and/or irrelevant information that detracts from the article. 209.23.253.242 07:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey are you of those "NT good, OT bad" persons? :) It is true that OT has violence not compatible with Christianity (since the latter is an evolution and perfection to the other), however OT encourages meekness, goodness, patience and humbleness. It doesn't promote violence. Don't forget that Torah was composed also by persons who misinterpreted the prophets, and that's about who Jesus spoke against Pictureuploader 09:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

yes i am one of those people :) actually i am Gospel good, and nothing else. you are right that the OT encourages all those virtues. but the OT considers war good in some cases, and Jesus considers violence bad in all cases. somehow, most Christians miss this extremely important point of his teachings. and if the NT is an "evolution and perfection" of the OT, then studying the OT for ethics can only hinder you, b/c it will teach you something less evolved and imperfect, and distract you from studying the full goodness.

but aside from that personal note, what it says under historical origins is false and irrelevant. "It is commonly assumed that this teaching originated with Jesus, but" There is the first mistake. It DID originate with Jesus, b/c he is the one who said "Turn the other cheek." If it was built on Jewish teachings, JESUS is the one who built on them. So the teaching originated with Jesus.

Secondly, I think that it is very debateable whether he got it from the OT. He said "Turn the other cheek" in direct opposition to "eye for an eye," and so it seems like he is rejecting the Hebrew Bible as much or more than he is building on it.

Thirdly, yes, Hillel and Jesus both said the Golden Rule, but this article is not about the golden rule - it is about "Turn the other cheek," which Hillel could not have influenced. In fact, Hillel would probably think "Turn the other cheek" was terrible, b/c it abrogates part of the Hebrew Law which he believed in strict literal observance of. And, like i keep saying, Matt 7:12 is irrelevant to this article.

I deleted the section and was warned that it was vandalism (apparently deleting false and irrelevant material is vandalism) and so i revised it a different way. 209.23.253.242 07:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While I find it compelling to state that Hillel influenced Jesus, I do not know of an example of Hillel stating the Golden Rule. If anyone has an example of someone stating the Golden Rule prior to Jesus I would be extremely interested in seeing the evidence. Hillel puts forward the Silver Rule, which is found in the OT and in many other historical texts of various religions. The Golden Rule is what changes this from a directive of non-action (Silver Rule) to a directive of correct-action (Golden Rule). The Silver Rule might imply correct-action, but it does not demand it. --ElgertS 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh dear,the title of this section, just super.
 * Man A: k, just made a bunch of stuff up, I think it's hanging together...
 * Man B: hmmm, lemme see, you know I think I can rationalise a lot of this, find the origins of some of this stuff you've got here and make it generally more comprehensible and less simplistic and less geared towards children....
 * Man A: Hey, you can't do that, you're just making stuff up!!
 * Man B: yeah (laughs nervously) but you just made it up in the first pla... oh... oh well nm. Listen I have to go.  Yeah I think it'll hang together... like you said.  Looks GREAT.  Well good luck.... Bye!" Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Page title
"Turn the other cheek" is a verb phrase. I've moved this page to "Turning the other cheek" which is a noun phrase, as per WP:VERB. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe that this moron actually just PARAPHRASED a direct quotation attributed to Jesus Christ (as rendered by the Authorized King James English translation of the Bible) so that it would conform to a Wikipedia editing guideline. Wow. Mardiste (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian pacifism
An article has been started called Christian pacifism and a new category Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture
I think there should be a section in the article about references to "turning the other cheek" in popular culture (e.g. the song Where Is the Love? by the black eyed peas) I don't know any other references to it but I'm sure there are others. --George 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried adding it? I agree with you. ElgertS (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Something missing
Shouldn't there be a section in the article about how this philosophy was not in any way influenced by any part of the zeitgeist of the period, for example other philosophical thought, nor could it possibly have been a philosophical expression of a political reality in the influence of Rome imposing 'peace' whether it was desired or not, and that anyone who suggests such things is 'not mainstream', a 'tiny minority', 'discredited' and so forth. I just feel that's lacking from the article at the moment. Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear you flesh your stance out here further. Many people view this philosophy is a radicalization of Hillel the Elder or a major reworking of the message of John the Baptizer. ElgertS (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What is really literal
"Turn the other cheek" in a very literal sense could read that if someone slaps you or insults you or hits you, you don't respond to them emotionally out of anger and retaliate. Depending on your interpretation, either challenge them to harm you again, or shrug it off. Even taking it in this literal sense, it isn't necessary an argument against using force. Its an argument about not responding to force emotionally.

It makes equal sense to believe Christ would expect people to protect the weak; and equally that Caesar would rightfully be able to carry out his duties to enforce law.

"Turn the other cheek", I don't believe even in the literal sense, is a statement by Christ that if someone threatens to kill a child, you don't do whats necessary to protect the child.

I know a lot of people believe the interpretation that I just gave you. What I'm questioning though is why is this not, by the authors of this article, considered a 'literal' interpretation. Why does a literal interpretation have to equate to pacifism?

I don't see why it should.

 * I would ask what is pacifism really? I find the word vague and not useful to me as it has been often used in contradictory manners. For me the question is the difference between the two well defined and opposing concepts of nonresistance and nonviolence. At points in this pages history the literal section was titled "Nonresistance" and the historical section "Nonviolence". I still feel that is more clear as its the question of whether, as you say, you do nothing about it or you definitely will do something, but that will not involve the use of violence on your part. ElgertS (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Either way, I don't think lack of violence is a more literal interpretation, than an interpretation that would allow violence. The message read literally tells you not to retaliate, but the statement has a specific point to it--about how you react to an attack. That doesn't necessarily prohibit you from taking whatever action is just, in the normal course of things, even if that action is violent. I believe it correlates very nicely with the fact that 'wrath' is a sin in Christianity. Even though Christians believe that acting out of wrath is a sin, that doesn't mean Christians think any use of violent force is sinful; one is never regarded as having sinned when one acts in self-defense or protects another's life. That is simply acting justly. The point, to Christians, is to be merciful and forgiving. To not have yourself feel controlled by hatred, but instead to challenge hatred. And I think that's a message in tune with Christ's teachings also, to be merciful and forgiving. This position of the Church, I think, grew directly from those who spread Christianity. Despite all the martyrs, who tried themselves to act like Christ, I don't think there was a time when Christians believed others acted wrongly when force was used in a just way. Nor do I think Christ meant to condemn anyone, himself, who acted in a just way, when he said 'turn the other cheek'

 * Nonresistance means not reacting at all not just lack of violence. Nonviolence is a flawed phrase for what it means. In fact, nonviolence doesn't exclude violence - it prohibits impassioned revenge. Nonviolent action can involved killing someone for that matter and still be nonviolence, as seen in the Madman with a Sword example. You take no joy for the result of your actions and your actions work towards the maximum good including for your adversary. --ElgertS (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for the figurative interpretation
"At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

Where's the evidence for this? There should be at least some sort of scholarly source. As of now, there's too many claims in this paragraph about 1st century anthropology and not enough anthropological evidence to back it up. 124.168.169.169 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference added. --ElgertS (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please someone hurry to re-write/erase this.
I don't know where to begin to explain why.

"Also, When Jesus said turn the other cheek he was saying, when someone yells at you dont react harshly. Just listen to their plight. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Jesus was not rejecting this. He understood it. The Jews thought God meant what someone does to you do back to them. But it means whatever you do to someone God will do to you. Its Karma. You reap what you sow. Do unto others what what you would have them do to you. Because what you do to others will come back on you good and bad." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.230.128 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite required
I am somewhat surprised by this entire article and the lack of scholarship in it. The article consists mainly of personal interpretation and speculation. The whole notion of karma (Buddhist) is just thrown in, somewhat arbitrarily, and "turning the other cheek" is linked in a rather convoluted way to Gandhi's philosphy of Satyagraha (which directly inspired strategies/tactics of both Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela/Walter Sisulu's ANC Youth League) but which is only tangentially linked to this topic. The bulk of the article (which currently has the tone of "some think this" and "some think that") should really identify the main scholarly interpretations and provide references. Without this, everything else is "noise". 89.243.70.222 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it does, are you willing to coordinate on such an effort? Not sure about your stand on the relationship of these movements being less than direct. First, karma far predates Buddhism by a long shot as does Buddhism predate the first century. Additionally Gandhi kept an image of Jesus hanging directly in front of him in his office due to the Sermon on the Mount's influence on his beliefs. The rest of the line you mention follow directly from there with Martin Luther King keeping a painting and statue of Gandhi in his home. Wikipedia has matured greatly in the last few years as to how articles are to be formatted and properly referenced. Undoubtedly the hand of a talented individual to aid in such an effort would be greatly appreciated. ElgertS (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Figurative?
"Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:" This argument seems really absurd to me. I'm certain it contradicts existing Jewish law. Can we have a source on this? In fact, all of the arguments in the "figurative" section are really shoddy. Even in this spin, Jesus is advocating a form of passive resistance (getting "oppressors" into trouble by forcing them to break obscure Roman laws) as opposed to direct violent confrontation (e.g. Zealots). I agree with ElgertS about the lack of scholarship. 71.198.211.141 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about contradicting existing Jewish law, but this may need clarification to the acceptance of nudity being tied to or attributed to poverty which would have an affect how how the debtor is viewed. As for the arguments being really shoddy, these arguments stem directly from scholarship (Jesus Seminar) Christian Nonviolence. While open to criticism, I don't think they are shoddy. I don't think anyone would put Jesus in with the Zealots, who are probably the only First Century Jewish group not mentioned by him. --ElgertS (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Low Academic Quality
I just clicked on this from a link at JuanCole.com, and wanted to comment. We have to distinguish between (a) scholarly interpretations of what Jesus, and/or the author(s) of the biblical verses, meant and (b) Christian theological interpretations. On (a), the article cites a handful of sources (without giving page numbers!) which may or may not represent current scholarly opinion. Biblical scholarship is full of speculative theories which are promoted by one person. How can we know whether these interpretations have gained wide acceptance? Also, since the citations are so vague (again, no page numbers are given), I have no great confidence that these theories are actually supported by the sources given (one of which apparently starts from the Bar Kokhba revolt). On (b), the article makes some attempt to cover Christian pacifism, but neglects more mainstream views (see Just War). --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.180.224 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Literal? Straighforward?
This article doesn't even use the term, "literal" literally. I'm not a scholar but I sure know that the extremely short bit under that heading is just one obscure interpretation. Also really unclear what you mean by "straightforward." If you're not going to do it right, just don't do it, man. Genepoz (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Including discussing of related verses?
I improved the "Interpretations" headings and the material under them, so this article is at least somewhat more accurate now. But I have a question: should Turning the other cheek continue to cover the verses about handing over your clock and going two miles, or should it be trimmed down to just discussing the actual subject of the article? I decided to leave the extra material in because the additional verses are context for the idea of turning the other cheek, and because these verses do get discussed together on blogs, etc., but I'd be interested in other opinions. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not being emotionally affected by negative feedback is annoying and psychopathic
Not being emotionally affected by negative feedback(like a slap to the face) is annoying and psychopathic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.146.20 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Section 2.4
Maybe I'm wrong, but this section of the article is very opinionated, uses unprofessional writing voice, and lacks citations. (I have a lot of respect for the Wikipedia community, but I'm new to it, so feel free to correct or advise.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.65.170 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations
Shouldn't there be more sources here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.2.98 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The very first paragraph on this page has no citations at all
I am not a Christian so this would be better suited to someone who is more familiar with the new testament Gospels. I think there should be at the very least about 2 citations in the first paragraph. One citation should indicate the source of the quote/ saying/ topic of the page. The other should indicate a good source that interprets the meaning.

I am not in dispute with either, by the way. I simply think it should meet with Wikipedia principles.--Hypernator (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Add Lamentations
First biblical source of turning the cheek is in lamentations, 3:30 -

"He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him"

This should be added to the article under "Scriptural references" ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Turning the other cheek


text:
Sexual stimulation

Sexual stimulation is any stimulus (including bodily contact) that leads to, enhances and maintains sexual arousal, and may lead to orgasm. Although sexual arousal may arise without physical stimulation, achieving orgasm usually requires it.

The term sexual stimulation implies stimulation of the genitals, but may also include stimulation of other areas of the body, stimulation of the senses (such as sight, smell, or hearing) and mental stimulation (e.g., reading or fantasizing). Sufficient stimulation of the penis or clitoris usually results in an orgasm. Stimulation can be by self (e.g., masturbation) or by a sexual partner (sexual intercourse or other sexual activity), by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods.

Some people practice orgasm control, whereby a person or their partner controls the level of stimulation to prolong the experience leading up to orgasm.

Physical sexual stimulation
Physical sexual stimulation consists of touching the genitals or other erogenous zones.

Genital
Masturbation, erotic massage, and manual sex are types of physical stimulation involving the genitals. Arousal is triggered through sensitive nerves in these body parts, which cause the release of pleasure-causing chemicals (endorphins) that act as mental rewards to pursue such stimulation. A person may also become aroused by simply touching another person, though the bulbocavernosus reflex itself is triggered by stimulation of the glans penis or clitoris.

One study found that women benefit more from pleasurable sex with a committed partner, while gender did not impact the relationship with masturbation.

The purpose of sex toys is to provide pleasure and stimulation through an alternative route than just using people's bodies. They can be used by someone on their own, with partnered sex, or group sex. They can be exciting and provide new types of stimulation that the body cannot produce, such as vibrations.

Sex toys have been used as a source of sexual stimulation for thousands of years. There have been dildos found from the Palaeolithic era, made of siltstone and polished to a high gloss. Dildos were also made of camel dung and coated with resin. Historians are uncertain whether these have been used for religious rituals or for personal pleasure. It is known that dildos were used for fertility rituals, however. The ancient Greeks created their dildos from a carved penis covered in leather or animal intestines to create a more natural feel. The Romans created double-ended dildos for use with a partner. Ancient Chinese dildos were made of bronze or other metals and some were hollow allowing them to be filled with liquid to simulate an ejaculation. These were used because wealthy Chinese men would often have too many wives to please. In Persia, it was thought that the blood of the hymen was unclean, and should be avoided by husbands. On the night before a woman's wedding, a local holy man would come and break her hymen with a large stone dildo, a ritual also used to confirm the virginity of the bride.

Non-genital
There are many areas through which a person can be sexually stimulated, other than the genitals. The nipples, thighs, lips, and neck can all provide sexual stimulation when touched.
 * Nipples
 * One study administered a questionnaire about sexual activity to 301 participants and found that 81.5% of women reported that stimulating their nipples caused or enhanced sexual arousal and that 59.1% of them asked to have their nipples stimulated during sex. Furthermore, 51.7% of men reported that nipple stimulation caused sexual arousal, and 39% said that it enhanced their existing arousal. Research using brain-scanning technology found that stimulating nipples in women resulted in the activation of the genital area of the sensory cortex. The research suggests the sensations are genital orgasms caused by nipple stimulation, and may also be directly linked to "the genital area of the brain".  In women, one study indicated that sensation from the nipples travels to the same part of the brain as sensations from the vagina, clitoris and cervix. Nipple stimulation may trigger uterine contractions, which then produce a sensation in the genital area of the brain.

 * Thighs
 * In 2012, the California Institute of Technology measured brain responses in heterosexual males as they were having their inner thighs touched whilst being MRI scanned. They were either watching a video of a woman touching their thigh or a man touching their thigh. They reported more sexual pleasure when they thought it was the woman touching them than the man, and this was reflected in their MRI scans with greater arousal of their somatosensory cortex. It can be therefore concluded that the thighs are an area that can cause sexual stimulation when touched.

 * Lips
 * Lips contain a huge number of nerve endings and are considered to be an erogenous zone. Women report experiencing more pleasure from the stimulation of their lips than men do (see below for sex differences in stimulation). In addition to stimulation of the lips by touching, men can be visually stimulated by looking at a woman's lips. It has also been reported that men prefer women with fuller lips because they are an indicator of youth.

 * Neck
 * A sample of 800 participants rated 41 different body parts on their erogenous intensity on a scale of 1–10 (10 being the most arousing). Females reported neck stimulation as being more arousing than men did.

Sex differences in erogenous zones
This table shows the sex differences in erogenous zones and includes the top ten most arousing areas for both sexes. Each body part was rated out of ten for how arousing it is when touched. Apart from body parts exclusive to one gender such as the penis or clitoris, many of the erogenous zones are similar and contain many nerve endings.

Internal stimulation
The excitation-transfer theory states that existing arousal in the body can be transformed into another type of arousal. For example, sometimes people can be sexually stimulated from residual arousal arising from something such as exercise, being transformed into another type of arousal such as sexual arousal. In one study participants performed some physical exercise and at different stages of recovery had to watch an erotic film and rate how aroused it made them feel. They found that participants who were still experiencing excitatory residues from the exercise rated the film as more arousing than those who had fully recovered from the exercise. This suggests that the remaining arousal from the exercise was being transformed into sexual arousal without any external stimulation.

Alternative routes
The human sexual response is a dynamic combination of cognitive, emotional, and physiological processes. Whilst the most common forms of sexual stimulation discussed are fantasy or physical stimulation of the genitals and other erogenous areas, sexual arousal may also be mediated through alternative routes such as visual, olfactory and auditory means.

Visual
Perhaps the most researched non-tactile form of sexual stimulation is visual sexual stimulation. An apparent example is the act of voyeurism – a practice where an individual covertly watches another undress or engage in sexual behaviour. Although seen socio-historically as an unacceptable form of 'sexual deviation', it highlights the human tendency to find sexual stimulation through purely visual routes. The multibillion-dollar porn industry is another example. A common presumption is that men respond more strongly to visual sexual stimuli than do women. This is perhaps best exemplified by the Kinsey hypothesis that men are more prone to sexual arousal from visual stimulation than are women. Nonetheless, both sexes can be sexually aroused through visual stimulation. In one study, visual stimulation was tested by means of an erotic video. Although significantly higher in the male group, sexual arousal was the main emotional reaction reported by both sexes. Their physiological responses to the video also showed characteristics of sexual arousal, such as increased urinary excretions of adrenaline. A subsequent study investigating male arousal showed that men were able to achieve rigid erections through visual stimulation of an erotic film alone.

Studies that use visual stimulation as a means for sexual stimulation find that sexual arousal is predominantly correlated with an activation in limbic and paralimbic cortex and in subcortical structures, along with a deactivation in several parts of the temporal cortex. These same areas are activated during physical sexual stimulation, highlighting how powerful visual stimulation can be as a means of sexual arousal.

Olfactory
Olfactory information is critical to human sexual behavior. One study investigating olfactory sexual stimulation found that heterosexual men experience sexual arousal in response to a female perfume. Individuals rated odourant stimulation and perceived sexual arousal. They also had functional MRI scans taken during the experiment. The results showed that olfactory stimulation with women's perfume produces activation of specific brain areas associated with sexual arousal in men. Another study found that homosexual men displayed similar hypothalamic activation to that of heterosexual women when smelling a testosterone derivate present in male sweat, suggesting that sexual orientation plays a role in how humans experience olfactory sexual stimulation.

Evolutionary analysis of sex differences in reproductive strategies can help explain the importance of smell in sexual arousal due to its link to immunological profile and offspring viability. This is because olfactory cues may be able to trigger an incest avoidance mechanism by reflecting parts of an individual's genetic equipment. In one study, males rated visual and olfactory information as being equally important for selecting a lover, while females considered olfactory information to be the single most important variable in mate choice. Additionally, when considering sexual activity, females singled out body odour from all other sensory experiences as most able to negatively affect desire.

Auditory
Auditory stimulants may also serve to intensify sexual arousal and the experience of pleasure. Making sounds during sexual arousal and sexual activity is widespread among primates and humans. These include sighs, moans, strong expirations and inspirations, increased breathing rate and occasionally, at orgasm, screams of ecstasy. Many of these sounds are highly exciting to people, and act as strong reinforcers of sexual arousal, creating a powerful positive feedback effect. Thus, copulatory vocalisations are likely to serve mutual sexual stimulation for mating partners.

Even when not coupled with "touching", sounds can be highly sexually arousing. Commercial erotic material (mainly produced for the male market) uses such sounds extensively. As early as the 1920s and 30s, several genres of singers turned to "low moans" for erotic effect. Vaudeville Jazz singers often incorporated sex sounds into the narrative of the lyrics. Even contemporary music such as Prince's "Orgasm" or Marvin Gaye's "You Sure Love to Ball" includes sounds of the female orgasm. Research has shown music to be an auditory sexual stimulant. In one mood induction study, exposure to certain music resulted in significantly greater penile tumescence and subjective sexual arousal for men. In a similar experiment, women did not show significant physiological responses to certain types of music but did report higher levels of sexual arousal. Further studies have looked at the connection between auditory stimulation and the experience of sexual pleasure. Whilst the highest levels of physiological and subjective arousal were found for visual stimuli, spoken-text was found to elicit sexual arousal in men, implicating sounds as a means of sexual stimulation. Phone sex is one type of arousal inducer that makes use of this effect.

Mental stimulation
Sexual arousal includes feelings, attractions and desires, as well as physiological changes. These can be elicited not only by physical but also mental stimulations, such as fantasy, erotic literature, dreams, role-play, and imagination.

Fantasy
Sexual fantasy is a form of mental sexual stimulation which many people engage in. It is where a person imagines a sexual experience while they are awake. Fantasy has less social or safety limits than in real life situations. It gives people more freedom to experiment or think of things they could not necessarily try in real life and can be anything from imagining your spouse naked, to imagining a sexual experience with a mythical creature. Common sexual fantasies include imagining activities with a loved partner, reliving past experiences and experiences with multiple partners of the opposite gender. It is also common to have fantasies about things you would not do in real life and about taboo or illegal activities, such as forcing another, or being forced by another to have sex, intercourse with a stranger and sex with a boy or girl or older partner.

It is useful for research because it makes differences between male and female heterosexual preferences clearer than studies of behaviour. Many sexual fantasies are shared between men and women, possibly because of cultural influence. However, there are still gender differences that have been found. Men are more likely than women to imagine being in a dominant or active role, whereas women are more likely to imagine themselves as passive participants. Women's fantasies have significantly more affection and commitment, whereas men are more likely to fantasise using visual imagery and explicit detail. One explanation of this difference comes from the evolutionary perspective. Women have a higher minimum parental investment than males (they have 9 months of gestation prior birth and are then the main care givers, whereas men only have to provide sperm to ensure their genes are passed on) and are therefore more likely to want commitment from their partner in order to gain resources to improve their offspring's chance of survival.

Fantasies can have benefits, such as increasing arousal more than other forms of sexual stimuli (such as an erotic story) and increasing sexual desire. Individuals who disclose their sexual fantasies to their partners also have a higher sexual satisfaction. However, whether people are willing to open up to their partner generally depends on the content of such fantasies. A more negative effect of sexual fantasy is that it has been linked with sexual crimes, and indeed sexual offenders often report that they have had fantasies related to their offense. However, such fantasies are also common among those who have not been involved in such criminal acts and non-offenders do not use their fantasies to guide their behaviour. Therefore, fantasy alone cannot be used as a sign that someone will become an offender.

Dreams
Nocturnal emission orgasms or "wet dreams" or "erotic dreams" are when people ejaculate or orgasm during sleep. These occur during REM (rapid eye movement) phases of sleep, which is the main stage when humans dream. This implies that erotic dreams alone are enough to stimulate men, but erections accompany all REM phases. According to self-report data, as many as 22% of young women may also experience orgasm during sleep, with such dreams being more common in college students in higher school years than younger students. The orgasms experienced were positively correlated with high emotionality, including sexual excitement, but also anxiety.

Sexual role-play
Sexual role-play is when people act out characters or scenarios which may sexually stimulate each other. This can include fantasies (discussed above) and fetishes, such as BDSM (bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism) or age-play. It has been described by some as an adult form of L.A.R.P (live action role-play). Role-play can also be carried out online, by typing stories to each other or pretending to be a character, and is therefore a form of mental stimulation you can engage in with another person without them being physically present. Many adolescents find online role-play pleasurable and arousing.

Role-play can also include sexual fan fiction, where characters from well-known stories, that were not sexually or romantically together in the original story, are written into sexual scenes. Slash fiction is a type of fan fiction where the characters of the same sex (originally male-male) engage in romantic or sexual activities. Slash fiction allows people the freedom to share stimulating things that can be counter-cultural.

Physiological factors
According to the National Library of Medicine, approximately 80% of middle aged women with heart failure have reported a decrease in vaginal lubrication, leading to challenges in successful intercourse. The reduction in lubrication affects the vaginal moisture during sexual activity. Women with hypoactive sexual desire (HSDD) may also experience a lack of interest in sexual stimuli, thus affecting their psychological responses to sexual cues. Within the study conducted by Sandra Garcia and her colleagues, suggested that trauma-related changes may impact genital tissues, affecting blood flow and response to sexual stimulation. As well as when psychologic distress is present it affects the ability to achieve orgasm despite adequate sexual stimulation. This is a result of relationship issues that affect sexual stimulation and sexual response, connecting back to orgasmic difficulties.

Hormonal factors
The deficiency of estrogen leads to conditions like dyspareunia, which is something important for maintaining adequate lubrication. Therefore there is hormonal treatment that is used which is the addition of in-taking estrogen supplements. But as well as the supplementation of testosterone, which was shown as beneficial for enhancing desire, arousal, and sexual satisfaction. There could also be some hormonal changes when it comes to going through the phases of aging. A review in 'The Journal of Sexual Medicine', showed how pre-menopause women showed more sexual dissatisfaction. This was shown due to their hormonal imbalances.

Brain
When sexual stimulation is perceived, there are systems in the brain that receive the stimuli and respond to it. During physiological sexual arousal, the autonomic nervous system responds to signals from central nervous system and prepares the body for sexual activity. The autonomic nervous system engages the parasympathetic and sympathetic systems, which are responsible for blood flow to genital and erectile tissues, and to muscles that participate in sexual responses. This results in responses like increased breathing rate, heart rate, and pupil dilation. The limbic system also plays a part in how sexual stimuli are received. A study done about pleasure and brain activity in men showed that electrical stimulation of the limbic system is highly pleasurable, and can sometimes generate orgasmic responses. During genital stimulation different areas of the brain are activated in men and women. For men, a study saw that genital stimulation caused part of the cerebral cortex and the insula, which is a part of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, to activate. For women, during clitoral stimulation parts of the secondary somatosensory cortex were activated. In both men and women the amygdala was deactivated.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sexual stimulation


text:
Talk:Veld

 * Veld Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete for the same reasons Lekker was deleted. .Angela. 01:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anjouli 11:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Added missing VfD tag. Anjouli 11:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * At least three articles link to veld. Redirect to countryside. Dysprosia 11:41, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to cleanup. Velt isn't just an adjective, it's a specific instance of a biome (I dunno if it's officially Deserts and xeric shrublands or Tropical Savannas), and has specific geography, geology, hydrology, and plant and animal life. -- Finlay McWalter 11:51, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs work, but it belongs in an encyclopedia.   -- Popsracer 10:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To suggest that this article should be deleted is silly. The veld is not simply an adjective, it is a specific region and type of countryside in Southern Africa. If it is deleted one might as well delete the articles on the pampas of Argentina, the prairies of North America or for that matter the Sahara or the Amazon Rainforest. Booshank 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it temporarily until more can be written about it. It is also listed on Cleanup. Angela. 01:35, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

bushveld and thornveld
These are terms that keep cropping up in Africa articles. Anyone able to explain these terms beyond the obvious? --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Veld fire
Would love to have a section on a veld fire. Rauterkus (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Veld/Veldt
Someone arbitrarily removed an entry on the correct spelling of veld on the curious justification: "removed language that would only be of interest to south africans". This unsupported claim is illogical anyway; many people interested enough to refer to the article might well want to know how to spell it and why, as long as there is an incorrect usage peculiar to the subject matter. Such foreign terms for regional concepts are of intrinsic interest to large classes of persons, so just because one editor is uninterested, is no justification for its removal. Compare say, "Chaparral", "Prairie", "Pampas", "Fynbos" and other words where the etymology is of interest. One's personal uninterest is no justification for deletion of relevant matter. Unless someone can strongly justify this apparently arbitrary deletion of material and historic information, I shall reinstate it within a few days. I have left a similar note at the address from which the deletion was done.JonRichfield (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In the late 1930's Count and Countessa Van Vryveldt lived in an apartment block on Manning Rd in Glenwood South Africa. Could this name be part of the etymology of the term "Veldt"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.55.197 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Image Removal Request
G'day. Just noticed the image subtitled 'Springboks in the burned veld; Etosha National Park, Namibia' on this article. It is inappropriate for this article. The emphasis is on the springbok's not the veldt, further the colors have been altered with the entire image being black and white except the animals. It gives us no further understanding or explanation of what a veldt is, besides showing us some springbok's and some black and white scrub and, as I said, is just totally inappropriate an illustration and if anything would confuse a viewer who knows nothing about the subject into thinking that that is possibly what a veldt looks like after a veldt fire or some such, or assume that the photo isn't a manipulation and that is actually what it looks like. For this reason I ask that the editors of this article remove it, and hopefully find something more appropriate. Whilst it may sound daft, remember that not everyone understands things as well as you do, that and we have kids using Wiki to learn, so both of those demographics may be stupid enough to make the aforementioned assumptions, which to you and I may seem silly, but really isn't. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Right mate, I take your point. However it is not as obvious what to do about it as it might seem. I was just having a look to see whether to remove it as suggested and what to put in its place, when I realised that veldfires are hardly mentioned and they deserve to be. So far so simple. So I thought that I might have a crack at it. Oopsie! It is quite a subject! Material on conservation and burning is pretty badly scattered and fragmented in WP and not much of what I found was very relevant to veld. I was wondering whether to leave this article as is, with mostly a few links, or whether to insert a section on veldfires or start a new article on veldfires. At the moment I am contemplation the second option of the three, which should meet your objections, and at least I could concentrate on getting the context right. I am just worried that the resulting article might be a bit top-heavy. Any remarks? JonRichfield (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I have been away and not able to do much about the article myself. However I wandered by on other business and added another pic. It seems to me that the paired pics have something to say about a certain kind of veld that a single photo does not. Whether the black-and-white editing is important is a debatable point; it is not (to my eye anyway) obtrusive or misleading, though I would not have edited it myself. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye open for photo-opportunities of veld so that I can add some material to WM commons. (Slavery! That's what it is! ) JonRichfield (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why this deep loathing for Yorkshiremen?
Am I the only one to wonder why "Yorkshiremen" is so much more acceptable than "Someone from Yorkshire"? Am I supposed to feel offended if someone calls me "South African" rather than "Someone from South Africa"? What sort of POV is either mode of expression supposed to push? Or didn't I notice when the powers that be added PC to the POV pillars of WP? JonRichfield (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You spelt that rong!
@Mark Marathon said:
 * Veldt is still a common form in English.
 * So are beleive and cemetary. I trust you do not suggest that we accommodate illiteracy to the extent of encouraging the use of all common misspellings?

 * Unreferenced material attached to references
 * Don't be coy; point them out! It is a lot more helpful than deletion of sound material. We appreciate that you are very busy, but so are other people and we have the "Citation needed" tag for just such eventualities. Note that just because a citation occurs at the end of paragraph, need not mean that it applies to the whole paragraph, especially when the paragraph in question was edited at various times in various contexts by different people.

 * Poor spelling (spelt?)
 * Distinctions in spelling are not necessarily poor spelling. In some words spelt "spell", as in spelling words with letters, "spelt" is the older, sounder, form and still the most comfortable, because it is more naturally phonetic. In the different word spell (of different etymology, NB!) "we spelled each other at the pumps", or "they spelled the horses halfway up the slope", "spelt" would be stupid, because that isn't how it is pronounced, and anyway (have just checked in the dictionary) Oxford does not offer "spelt" as an option. So next time you see us spelling "spelled" "spelt" consider correcting it rather than deleting it; and similarly when you see us spelling "spelt" "spelled".

I see incidentally that you have reverted again without waiting to see what appeared on the talk page. Trenchant no doubt, but is that an example of your cooperative spirit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonRichfield (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC) OOOPS! Sorry; forgot to sign! Thanks  JonRichfield (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good. A (poorly) sarcastic editor with article ownership issues. Any way, to address the actual issues concerning your edit.
 * Your edit that says that the word was " at one time also spelt veldt in English" is simply wrong. This isn't arguable. It's undeniably, provably and simply wrong. Every online dictionary I can find, including the OED, lists veldt as an alternative spelling. That alone is sufficient to have the edit removed. But then we check Google news, and we find that the spelling "veldt" was used in a publication just 12 hours ago ("In modern society, we don't live in the veldt anymore. But we're still using the same basic hardware.....), then two days ago (" the zoo remodeled the former African Veldt area into the current African Journey...), then three days ago ("The answer came in an enthralling, lung-busting match yesterday on the high veldt against their greatest rivals..."). In fact, if we exclude southern African and Dutch news sources, "veldt" was used in 151 publication in the past 30 days, and "veld" in just 94. So any edit that claims that the words was "at one time also spelt veldt in English" is flat out wrong and has to be removed. The word is still commonly spelled "veldt" in English, and outside southern Africa that appears to be the most common spelling. When you can provide a WP:RS that substantiates your claim that "veldt" was only used "at one time" and is no longer used, we can discuss this further. Until then the edit is out. WP:VERIFY says that it's out. WP:StatusQuo says that it's out.
 * Your edit that says that veldt is "Anachronistic at best" is wrong for the same reasons. It is also unencyclopaedic. The wording that says it is anachronistic is only just passable because it is indeed anachronistic in Dutch languages. However it is not anachronistic at all in English, and this is English Wikipedia, not Afrikaans Wikipedia. As a result of this little hissy-fit of yours, I am now going to have to ask for a reference check on the source that says that the word is anachronistic in English. I am also going to have to remove the two statements attributed to Google Ngram, since they are clearly WP:RS. But we sure can't say that "veldt" is "at best" anachronistic.
 * Your edit that deleted the sentences about Veld landforms occurring over a wide climatic scope is just mystifying. I can't see why your removed what seems like an utterly uncontentious statement.
 * You little edits such as changing "ranges" to "varies" or adding a superfluous "is" to a sentence aren't actually harmful, but they don't improve the article.
 * We are not "accommodating illiteracy" by not tolerating your unreferenced and provably wrong assertions about the usage of the spelling "veldt". If the OED lists it as an acceptable variant and it is being used in publications worldwide on a literally daily basis, then it ain't illiteracy. It may annoy the anal retentive, but any word that is in common usage and appears in a dictionary is a real word. Get used to it.
 * There is no requirement under Wikipedia policies for edits that incorporate unreferenced material be left in place and simply tagged. Get used to that too.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know veld was a spelling until reading this article, my spell checker didn't know either.

 * As a child growing up in Britain I only ever saw the spelling 'veldt', and was quite unaware that 'veld' existed. The article says 'this seems to have been mainly an English confusion with the already obsolete Dutch usage', but I can think of a far better reason. Anyone unfamiliar with Dutch and Afrikaans would tend to pronounce the 'd' as in the English word 'weld', and the 't' (which was quite certainly used at one stage in both Dutch and English, though not in Afrikaans when it later became standardised, which among other things involved eliminating what had become silent letters) provides a clue to the correct pronunciation - in both Dutch and Afrikaans a final 'd' always sounds like 't'. This use of 'dt' is not uncommon in English when dealing with words from German and Dutch - for instead, the Dutch word 'stadhouder' (the political leader of the independent Dutch Republic from the 16th century onwards) is generally rendered in English as 'stadtholder', which is not - or at least no longer - correct Dutch, but does suggest the correct pronunciation of the first 'd' at the end of the word 'stad' (= 'city'). So we are not, as some contributors have suggested, dealing with 'illiteracy' - any comparison to such outright misspellings as 'beleive' and 'cemetary' is unhelpful and misleading. 'Veldt' has always been an acceptable English spelling, although it may now be less common than it used to be. I can speak and read all three languages, so I know what I'm talking about!213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as "veldt" remains Kipling's use, I don't think it can be considered incorrect. J S Ayer (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Google Ngram history or spelling use.
I've removed material that made assertions about the relative use of the two spellings of "veldt". It was based entirely on Google Ngrams. This is clearly original research, the references didn't even say what the editor claimed, and Google Ngrams wouldn't be a reliable source even if it did say it. This removal should be uncontroversial, but o thought I'd add it to the talk page just in case.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Please explain why you think that it is OR to quote statistics not compiled by myself, any more than it is OR to consult a dictionary, or to justify your edits with consultations of google? Please note as well, that to copy text instead of paraphrasing it, is not permitted in WP, so that for you to argue that the reference didn't state what the editor claimed is in fact misleading in this instance. Do also please consider what you write in future before responding; it should help you achieve that coolness of spirit that is necessary for proper editing of the type necessary in WP; I am sure that on rereading your foregoing and following responses, you would prefer to reword them to avoid embarrassment and giving the impression of unintended discourtesy. JonRichfield (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 * You can quote statistics any time you like. What you can't do is put any interpretation on them not given by the authors. When you can show us that Google ever claimed that those stats indicate that "veldt" has become obsolete, then you can use them.

 * If you actually read what Google has to say, you will find that they state explicitly that, using Ngrams, "there is no way of telling how words were used, in what context or in what form". In other words, we have no way of telling whether, for example, Veldt was popular at some or all points because there were famous people with that surname or because of Bradbury's story, or Veld was popular because of a scare concerning veldgrass. This is the single biggest limitation ot the use of Ngrams and precisely the limitation that Google warned you about. You can get some idea of how important this potentially is by just looking at a simple Google search. Excluding dictionary sites and Wikipedia the first ten pages of Google results are concerned with "The Veld Music Festival", people with "veld" in their surnames, brands with "veld" in their names and places called "veld". Not a single usage of the term veld in the context of this article until a reference to a veld fire on page 11. In contrast, a search of "veldt" has the first page taken up with references to songs and books, but uses the term in the context of this article on the second page. If this has been even remotely similar historically then we simply cannot draw any conclusions from Ngram searches. And of course there is no way of knowing whether this is true because Ngram doesn't allow searches of that sort.

 * There is also the limitation that Ngram only searches books, not newspapers, magazines, Hansards etc. If one spelling is preferred in scientific or anthropological texts, for example, then that may heavily skew the results.

 * We can also surmise that if "veld" is preferred in southern Africa, where the term is most commonly used, that one small geographic region could swamp the rest of the world even if "veldt" is preferred everywhere else. You can see the same thing with "grizzly bear" vs "brown bear". Even though brown bears are only called grizzlies in North America, it completely swamps the name preferred in the rest of the English speaking world because most works concerning brown bears come from North America because they are extinct in the rest of the English speaking world. You can see this quite clearly when you search for the same terms using British and American English. In British English "brown bear" predominates. Since we have no way to search for "African English" we can't even attempt this analysis to see the effect of regionalisms on "veldt".

 * Those are only some of the more obvious limitations which you can make yourself aware of if you read the actual material provided by Google.

 * But at the end of the day, we have a clear policy: WP:OR. "Wikipedia articles must not contain... any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources... Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources". It's that simple. You may present these statistics on there own if they are notable, but you may not analyse them as you have done to reach a conclusion  about when the word became obsolete or even when one form surpassed another in written English. That is OR. Furthermore you can not "combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". IOW, you can not combine the part of Ngram that says "the usage of 'veldt' is X in the sources searched" with the part that says that "the use of 'veld' is Y in the sources searched" to reach the conclusion that "veldt" is obsolete. That clearly violates WP:OR.

 * You do not seem to understand that WP:OR, along with most other Wikipedia policies, only applies to material in Wikipedia articles. There is no policy that prohibits or discourages the use of original research to make a point in a discussion with other editors, just so long as that material isn't used as a reference within the article.

 * And you are simply wrong that copying text instead of paraphrasing is not allowed on Wikpedia. If you refer toWP:PARAPHRASE you will note that "quoting (with or without quotation marks) is acceptable so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text".

 * Do also please consider consulting and contemplating Wikipedia policies before challenging uncontroversial edits in future. It will save you much embarrassment as well as making other editors more inclined to actually discuss points with you rather than simply seeing you as a time waster and linking you to policy pages.. I am sure that on rereading your foregoing and following responses (sic) you would prefer not to have made requests for information that is so easily available to any Wikipedia editor.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference checks
I've called for a couple of reference checks for offline sources.

The first if for the claim that "veldt" is anachronistic. Specifically, I would like to see a quote of the section that says that the word is currently regarded as anachronistic in English. As noted above, the word is still in common use in English language publications and dictionaries, and appears based on a Google search to be the more commonly used form outside southern Africa. I suspect that the source actually says that the word is anachronistic in Afrikaaans, but since his is English Wikipedia that would make it highly misleading to say that it is anachronistic in the lede.

The second is for the claim that "A typical authoritative dictionary will devote columns, or even pages to the subject". I find this claim to be highly doubtful. I suspect that the reference itself may devote pages to the subject and sees itself as an authoritative dictionary, but that doesn't mean that a typical authoritative dictionary does so. I would like to see a translated quote of where the source makes this claim.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Veld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511224120/http://www.ecotravel.co.za/Guides/Reserves/KNP/EcoZones/Thorn_Veld.htm to http://www.ecotravel.co.za/Guides/Reserves/KNP/EcoZones/Thorn_Veld.htm
 * Added tag to http://agriculture.kzntl.gov.za/publications/production_guidelines/veld_in_natal/veld_4.8.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.arc.agric.za/limpopo/pdf/basin_profile_part1c.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915124212/http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/botswana/botswana.htm to http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Botswana/botswana.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Veld


text:
International Pentecostal Holiness Church

The International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC) or simply Pentecostal Holiness Church (PHC) is an international Holiness-Pentecostal Christian denomination founded in 1911 with the merger of two older denominations. Historically centered in the Southeastern United States, particularly the Carolinas and Georgia, the Pentecostal Holiness Church now has an international presence. In 2000, the church reported a worldwide membership of over one million—over three million including affiliates.

Heavily influenced by two major American revival movements—the holiness movement of the late 19th century and the Pentecostal revival of the early 20th century —the church's theological roots derive from John Wesley's teachings on sanctification.

Origins
While certain elements in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South supported the holiness movement in the church, others did not favor it, which led to controversy in 1894. Within a decade about 25 new Holiness Methodist groups, including the Pentecostal Holiness Church, came into existence.

Fire-Baptized Holiness
The oldest group that is part of the foundation of the Pentecostal Holiness Church originated in 1895 as the Fire-Baptized Holiness Association in Olmitz, Iowa. The leader, Benjamin H. Irwin of Lincoln, Nebraska, a former Baptist preacher, organized the body into the national Fire-Baptized Holiness Church at Anderson, South Carolina, in August 1898. By this time, Irwin's group had organized churches in eight U. S. states and two Canadian provinces. In 1898, the Southeastern Kansas Fire Baptized Holiness Association dissolved its relationship with the rest of the denomination over differences in doctrine (chiefly the rejection of a third work of grace) and this faction is known today as the Bible Holiness Church.

Pentecostal Holiness of North Carolina
The first congregation to carry the name Pentecostal Holiness Church was formed in Goldsboro, North Carolina in 1898. This church was founded as a result of the evangelistic ministry of Abner Blackmon Crumpler, a Methodist evangelist. A year earlier, Crumpler had founded the inter-denominational North Carolina Holiness Association. After his trial and acquittal by a Methodist ecclesiastical court for preaching interpretations of holiness doctrines that differed from the rest of the Methodist Church, Crumpler and several of his followers left the Methodist Church and formed a new denomination known as the Pentecostal Holiness Church ("Pentecostal" being a common name for holiness believers at the time).

The first convention was held at Fayetteville, North Carolina in 1900. The convention adopted a denominational discipline, and Crumpler was elected president. In 1901 at a meeting in Magnolia, North Carolina, the word "Pentecostal" was dropped from the name to more fully associate the church with the holiness movement. For the next eight years, the church would be known as "The Holiness Church of North Carolina". The church had congregations outside of North Carolina as well, principally in South Carolina and Virginia.

Gaston B. Cashwell, a minister of the Methodist Church, joined Crumpler's group in 1903. He became a leading figure in the church and the Pentecostal movement on the east coast. In 1906, he traveled to Los Angeles to visit the Pentecostal revival at the Azusa Street mission. While there he professed having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the evidence of speaking in tongues. Upon returning to Dunn, North Carolina, in December 1906, Cashwell preached the Pentecost experience in the local holiness church.

The influence of the Pentecostal renewal grew while, at the same time, the leader and founder of the church, Abner Crumpler, though willing to accept speaking in tongues, did not accept the idea that it was the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the annual conference of 1908, Crumpler was re-elected president of the body; however, with a majority of the delegates having experienced tongues, he permanently disaffiliated himself from the church. After Crumpler's departure, the conference added an article to the statement of faith, recognizing tongues as the initial evidence: "We believe the pentecostal baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire is obtainable by a definite act of appropriating faith on the part of the fully cleansed believer, and the initial evidence of the reception of this experience is speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (Luke 11:13; Acts 1:5; 2:1-4; 8:17; 10:44-46; 19:6)."

The PHC Foreign Mission Board was formed in 1904, and its members were all women. In 1907, Tom J. McIntosh, a PHC member, traveled to China and may have been the first Pentecostal missionary to reach that nation.

Mergers and schisms
The Fire-Baptized Holiness Association also embraced Pentecostalism around the same time, taking the line that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was the "baptism of fire" that it had been seeking. Given the similarities in doctrine and geographic reach with the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the two groups began talks on a merger. The two groups merged on January 30, 1911, at the Falcon Tabernacle in Falcon, North Carolina. The new denomination took the name of the smaller of the two, Pentecostal Holiness Church. S.D. Page was elected the first General Superintendent.

Following the 1911 merger, the Tabernacle Pentecostal Church, originally the Brewerton Presbyterian Church, merged with the Pentecostal Holiness Church in 1915. Having Presbyterian roots and located mostly in South Carolina, this group of around 15 congregations was affiliated with Nickles Holmes Bible College in Greenville. After the mergers, the new denomination, which continued to go by the name Pentecostal Holiness Church, had about 200 churches with approximately 5,000 members. Property for the denomination's first headquarters was purchased in 1918 for $9,000 in Franklin Springs, Georgia.

In 1918, several PHC members who wanted stricter standards concerning dress, amusements, tobacco, and association between the sexes withdrew to form the Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. In 1920, another schism came into the Pentecostal Holiness Church over divine healing and the use of medicine. Some pastors believed that while divine healing was provided in the atonement, Christians still had the right to turn to medicine and doctors. The majority of the church—as did many Pentecostals of the time—believed in trusting God for healing without turning to earthly means. The minority withdrew and formed the Congregational Holiness Church in 1921.

Further development
The Pentecostal Holiness Church was a charter member of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1943 and joined the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America in 1948. At the general conference a year later an attempt at merging with the mostly black United Holy Church failed when the United Holy Church asked if their members could attend the church's schools and colleges.

In the 1960s, the Pentecostal Holiness Church began to branch out beyond the United States by affiliating with sister Pentecostal bodies in other parts of the world. In 1967, an affiliation was formed with the Pentecostal Methodist Church of Chile, one of the largest national Pentecostal churches in the world and the largest non-Catholic church in Chile. At the time, the Jotabeche Pentecostal Methodist congregation was the largest church in the world with over 60,000 members. With over 150,000 members, it ranks second to the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea. This denomination claims 1.7 million adherents. A similar affiliation was forged in 1985 with the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Brazil. A Neo-Pentecostal body with roots in the Brazilian Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church numbered some 50,000 members and adherents in 1995. The word International was added to the church's name in 1975.

Recent history
The largest Pentecostal Holiness churches in the United States include The Gate Church in Oklahoma City, pastored by Jordan Roberts (founded by Tony Miller; Northwood Temple in Fayetteville, North Carolina, pastored by John Hedgepeth; SpiritLife Church (formerly known as Evangelistic Temple) in Tulsa, Oklahoma, pastored by Tommy McLaurin; Eastpointe Community Church in Oklahoma City, pastored by Shon and Rachel Burchett; All Nations Church in Tallassee, Florida, pastored by Steve Dow; and Tree of Life Ministries in Lynchburg, VA, pastored by Mike Dodson.

In 2000, the IPHC reported 10,463 churches and over a million members worldwide (over 3.4 million including affiliates). In 2006, membership in the United States was 308,510 in 1,965 churches. There were 28 regional conferences and missionaries in more than 90 nations. International offices were once located in Franklin Springs, Georgia, but are now located in Bethany, Oklahoma, a suburb of Oklahoma City.

In January 2011, the PHC celebrated the 1911 merger centennial with special events at Falcon, North Carolina.

Doctrine
The doctrine of the Pentecostal Holiness Church is articulated in the Apostles' Creed and the Articles of Faith. The Articles were placed in their present form in 1945. The first four articles are essentially the same as the first four Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church.

The IPHC believes in common evangelical beliefs, including the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, his crucifixion for the forgiving of sins, his resurrection and ascension to heaven, the inerrancy of the Bible, a literal belief in heaven and hell, and the responsibility of every believer to carry out the Great Commission. The church holds water baptism and communion (open communion observed quarterly) to be divine ordinances. Though not considered an ordinance, some of the churches also engage in the practice of feet washing.

Cardinal doctrines
Since the adoption of the article of faith on the baptism of the Holy Spirit in 1908, the Pentecostal Holiness Church has taught the following beliefs as their five cardinal doctrines: justification by faith, entire sanctification, the baptism in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues, Christ's atonement (including divine healing), and the premillennial second coming of Christ.

Justification by faith
The Pentecostal Holiness Church believes that no amount of good works can achieve justification or salvation. This is achieved only "on the basis of our faith in the shed blood, the resurrection, and the justifying righteousness" of Christ. Good works, however, are a product of salvation. "When we believe on Jesus Christ as our Savior, our sins are pardoned, we are justified, and we enter a state of righteousness, not our own, but His, both imputed and imparted".

Sanctification
As a holiness church, the PHC believes that for the Christian there is not only justification and forgiveness for actual transgressions but also "complete cleansing of the justified believer from all indwelling sin and from its pollution." This cleansing is not "maturity" but a "crisis experience" and a "definite, instantaneous work of grace, obtainable by faith." The church recognizes that there is maturity and growth in the life of the believer, but states that "we must get into this grace before we can grow in it." The sanctified life is described as "one of separation from the world, a selfless life, a life of devotion to all the will of God, a life of holiness ... a life controlled by 'perfect love' which 'casteth out fear.'" The Pentecostal Holiness Church specifically rejects absolute perfection, angelic perfection, and sinless perfection—terms that imply that it is impossible for a sanctified believer to commit sin.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit
As a Pentecostal church, the PHC believes the "baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire is obtainable by a definite act of appropriating faith on the part of the fully cleansed believer." Spirit baptism is available to all believers and provides empowerment to witness for Christ. To receive the baptism, a person must have a "clean heart and life" and to "live in the fullness of the Holy Spirit's power and possession, one must continue to live a clean and consecrated life, free from sin, strife, worldliness, and pride, and must avoid attitudes and actions that tend to 'grieve' or 'quench' the Holy Spirit."

The Pentecostal Holiness Church distinguishes the initial evidence of Spirit baptism - which all believers experience when Spirit baptized - from the gift of tongues, which is not given to every Spirit-filled believer. Speaking in tongues is only the first sign of Spirit baptism. Other evidence that will follow Spirit baptism include: the fruit of the Spirit, power to witness for Christ, and power to endure the testings of faith and the oppositions of the world. Besides speaking in tongues, other spiritual gifts recorded in the Bible (specifically in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14) are encouraged to operate in Pentecostal Holiness congregations for the edification of the Body of Christ.

Divine healing
The PHC believes that "provision was made in the atonement for the healing of our bodies". Congregations will pray for the healing of sick people and church elders will lay hands on and anoint the person being prayed over. While in its early years the Pentecostal Holiness were against receiving medical care, emphasizing divine healing, that is not the case today. The church teaches that Christians should believe in divine healing but also teaches that medical knowledge comes to humanity through God's grace.

Second Coming
The PHC believes in the imminent, personal, premillennial second coming of Jesus Christ. It will occur in two stages: the first stage will be the rapture of the saints before the Tribulation, and the second stage will be at the end of the Tribulation when Christ will return to defeat the Antichrist, judge the nations of the world, and begin his millennial reign.

Structure
Reflecting its Methodist heritage, the IPHC is governed under the principles of connectionalism, a mixed system of episcopal and congregational polity. Authority in the church is shared between local churches, quadrennial conferences, and the General Conference.

Pentecostal Holiness congregations are self-governing in local affairs and are led by pastors. The pastor preaches, administers the ordinances, and promotes the "spiritual welfare" of congregants. Furthermore, the pastor is the chairman of the church board. Other than the pastor, the church board consists of deacons and a secretary/treasurer elected by the church members. The board is accountable to the pastor and church members, and pastors are accountable to the quadrennial conferences.

Geographically, churches are organized into conferences led by conference superintendents. In their spiritual roles, superintendents function as bishops, and in their administrative roles they act as chief executive officers of their conference. All conference leaders are elected by their local conference but are accountable to the General Superintendent.

The General Conference is the highest administrative body in the church. Under it are regional, annual, district, and missionary conferences. When the General Conference is out of session, the Council of Bishops acts as the church's governing body. In the IPHC, the terms "bishop" and "superintendent" are used interchangeably. The church recognizes the biblical office of bishop but does not believe in an historical episcopate or adhere to the doctrine of apostolic succession. The General Superintendent and Presiding Bishop, Dr. A. Doug Beacham Jr., was elected in 2012.

Educational institutions
The IPHC has four affiliated institutions of higher education. The IPHC colleges are Emmanuel University in Franklin Springs, Georgia; Holmes Bible College in Greenville, South Carolina; Southwestern Christian University in Bethany, Oklahoma; and Advantage College in San Jose, California.

Charitable institutions
Charitable organizations include the Falcon Children's Home, Alternative to Abortion Ministries, New Life Adoption Agency, and Bethany Children's Health Center.

Notable clergy

 * Oral Roberts, an internationally known charismatic evangelist (1936-1947)
 * C.M. Ward, a former Assemblies of God radio preacher and supporter of the Washington for Jesus movement.


text:
Saint Paul's College

Several colleges and universities around the world are called Saint Paul's College/University or St. Paul's College/University, including:

Africa

 * St Paul's College, Grahamstown, Eastern Cape
 * St. Paul's College, Namibia
 * St. Paul's University, Limuru, Kenya

Asia

 * St. Paul's College, Hong Kong
 * St. Paul's University (normally called Rikkyo University), Tokyo, Japan
 * St. Paul's College, Macau

India

 * St. Paul's College, Agra
 * Saint Paul's College, Goa
 * St. Paul's College, Kalamassery
 * St.Paul's College, Mumbai
 * St. Paul's College, in Ranchi Sadar subdivision, Jharkhand
 * St. Paul's College, Lucknow, a educational institution in Lucknow
 * St. Paul's Cathedral Mission College, Kolkata, known simply as Saint Paul's College

Philippines

 * St. Paul University System, which includes:
 * St. Paul College of Ilocos Sur
 * St. Paul College of Makati
 * St. Paul College, Pasig

Europe

 * St Paul's College, Raheny, Ireland

United Kingdom

 * St Paul's College, Sunbury-on-Thames
 * St Paul's College of Education, Cheltenham, England, a former college integrated into the University of Gloucestershire

Canada

 * St. Paul's College (Manitoba), Winnipeg
 * Saint Paul University, federated with the University of Ottawa
 * St. Paul's University College, University of Waterloo, Ontario

United States

 * Saint Paul College, Saint Paul, Minnesota
 * St. Paul's College, Concordia, Missouri, a former college of which St. Paul Lutheran High School (Missouri) was a department
 * Saint Paul's College (Virginia)
 * St. Paul's College, Washington, D.C.

Australia

 * St Paul's College, Adelaide
 * St Paul's College, Ballarat
 * Emmanuel College: St. Paul's Campus, Melbourne (formerly St. Paul's College)
 * St Paul's College, University of Sydney
 * St Pauls Catholic College, Sydney
 * St Paul's College, Kempsey
 * St Paul's College, Manly, New South Wales
 * St Paul's College, Walla Walla

New Zealand

 * St Paul's College, Auckland
 * St Paul's Collegiate School, Hamilton

title: Saint Paul's College