Maggie's Farm

Your interpretation of the scriptural text is reasonable might be the correct one. It is not obviously the plane meaning because it is not literal and, more importantly, is requires one to make inferences. In no sense is your interpretation "clearly" what Jesus meant.

Maybe you were there 2000 years ago and hung around for the Q&A so you can state authoritatively that Jesus also meant that you ought to allow yourself to be compelled against your interest to go a 3rd, 4th,5th, and more mile(s). Maybe he explained that of course, your only moral option after being slapped on the left cheek is to again present the right cheek, not to flee, parry the blow, or otherwise defend yourself, but suffer an indefinite number of blows. Maybe he clarified that of course, you should offer the person your sandals after they had your tunic and cloak. But I don't think so.

Your reply to my questions shares the same flaws as Zachs. It doesn't actually address the questions I raised. It consists entirely of question begging.
FYI. the historical contest doesn't actually shed any light on my questions. Also, if Jesus was being literal in his statement, that strongly suggest that one was under no obligation to go a third mile, meaning it would support the interpretation I offered as a potential alternative.

Epistemology 101: 1. All nonliteral interpretations require inferences. 2. All inferences are subjective. 3. If there are other interpretations from yours that rest on inferences a reasonable person might make, your interpretation is not "clearly correct." The certitude you express is a psychological state, not an epistemological one.

Your reply is simply question begging. You wave your hands about context, but you aren't specific about how the context refutes the alternative interpretation I offered as reasonable. Instead, you simply impose the same interpretative bias you used to reach your conclusion to the context you allege is the correct one.

The dilemma with your, and anyone who takes the Bible seriously (I include myself in that group) is that the Bible simultaneously advocates positively for two qualities that are intrinsically opposed to each other, justice and forgiveness. Justice is getting what one deserves. Forgiveness is a combination of not getting something bad that you deserve (mercy) and getting something good that you do not deserve (grace). So the context of the Bible, or even of just the New Testament does not unambiguously support your position.

This claim deserves a separate reply: "Interpreting Jesus as saying move away to avoid pain is just not a reasonable reading."
Read more carefully. That isn't what I said, or even close to what I implied.

What I implied, if you read carefully, is that Jesus did not prohibit fleeing from the assault after having been struck the second time. Or prohibit responses other than passivity. That Jesus did not require one surrender their sandals to the person who took their tunic and cloak. That Jesus did not require one to walk the third mile. The is a transparently reasonable interpretation. It is also obviously a more textualist reading of the verse that the one you offer.

BTW, I offer it not to advocate for it or to oppose your reading. Personally, I'm, ambiguous and might change my mind on a dime. But simply to point out that your reading is not "clearly true" Additionally, I'm pointing out by implication how insufferably self-righteous and narrow minded you are.

"It was inevitable after the great conflagrations of the world wars that people across the globe would expect and then demand a greater say in world affairs—in their affairs."

Hum. Presumably, you're talking about the demise of colonialism. The Brenton Woods agreement, offered to/imposed on Europe by the USA, required it. Further Europe was demographically and economically exhausted and thus unable to maintain their empires. The free trade element of Brenton Woods, access to US markets and US navy securing the sea lanes meant that the imperial powers benefited dramatically from abandoning their colonies. The inhabitants of the colonies, excepting India, had little to do with the end of colonialism.
"America was first among equals." A remarkably stupid claim. The USA had 90%+ of the developed world's GDP and 95% of its industrial capacity. Excepting its close ally, Britian, it had the only navy in the world. It had suffered a tiny number of causalities in comparison to the rest of the developed world, and some of the undeveloped world. None of its massive infrastructure was destroyed during the war, in stark comparison to the rest of the developed world (except Canada). It had, by miles, the best geography of any country in the world. In sum, there has never been any time in recorded history in which a single political entity had such a large percentage of the world's military, economic, and political power.
"America's strength always came, not from its individual power, but from its ability to marshal people and nations to the cause of freedom from all over the world." Ironic that you would do such chest beating nationalistic rhetoric. Our foreign policy has always, properly been, the pursuit of our perceived best interests. At least until the radical left recently gained power in that area of policy. But America has, by a good margin, been the most generous and lest tyrannical global hegemon in the world's history. A fact the left would do to remember when it engages in its fits of America bashing

Granting that there isn't reliable data going back to the WW2 era for GPD except for the USA and GB, those figures really are nonsense. Post war Europe outside of GB was no longer part of the developed world and had no industry to speak of. they were subsistence economics surviving on welfare from the USA. Russia retained some industry, but shut down most plants post war to put the labor into agriculture. They kept millions of their young males outside the country. The GDP dropped dramatically as a result. China and India were not part of the developed world, nor was most of Latin America. My claim isn't just reasonable, it is more accurate than the graph you linked to.

Let's take your analogy a little further. That same person, despite making $27,000.00/yr., is spending $37,000.00/yr. They have to cut their spending by over 27% just to stop adding to their debt. They must pay 14% ($3780.00) of that 27K on interest just to stay even. Additionally, they have $13,500.00 in annual legal obligations to other people they "have" to pay. That leaves them with about $8,000.00 a year to live on.

That sound doable to you? But let's dispense with the analogy. The USA is entering this position having accumulated this massive debt during its demographic peak, when the baby boomers, the largest generation in the country's history as a% of its population, where in their prime earning years and stoking the economy with massive investment. The capital they provided will decrease and capital will become increasingly expensive. While we will soak up massive amounts of money in Medicare and social security. Tell me again how social security isn't a Ponzi scheme. Further, it is a near certainty that the debt that many blue states and cities have accumulated will be added to the federal debt at some point.

Meanwhile, the disinflationary trends that existed from about 1985 until about 2010 or 2015 are going away. Much of western Europe and east Asis, especially China and S. Korea, are dying demographically and economically.

We have a few options, none great, for dealing with our debt. We can probably keep the wheel rolling as is for a couple more generations. That's the most likely option, as it's the easiest for current voters. We can do austerity budgets for generations, but that might stifle economic growth and thus be counterproductive. We can dramatically inflate the dollar. We could wait for other counties who hold our debt start collapsing (China in particular comes to mind) and just write off debt we owe their governments and citizens, since they would have little or no recourse.

But the US government's debts will never be paid, at least not in whole.

As per US Treasury data for FY'23: 6.13T (spending) - 4.44T (revenue) = 1.72 (deficit). 1.72T/4.44T = .387. X $27,000.00 = $10,459.46. You're wrong, I'm right.
I'll add that this is only cash accounting. Actuarially, the proper way to characterize our deficit, conservative estimates place the federal government's unfunded liabilities at 80T over the next 75 years. I've seen other estimates that put it at 95T over those 75 years. Adding in unfunded state and local government obligations brings the total to north of 130T over 75 years.