 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Upcoming book by Greg, possibly | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/20/2009 4:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Behold the Kingdom...
"It's no secret...we know how to squeeze lead..."
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/20/2009 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | D: If Christ's Body (the Church) is to be an eschatological people, then we are to allow Christ to live the life of "beating swords into ploughshares" in us RIGHT NOW.
J: I would say yes, in the sense that we are to live at peace with all men to the extent that that's possible. I don't really think the objection to war is a good place to argue. I think it's MUCH easier to find fault with war, even by TRADITIONAL just war criteria, than it is to justify non-intervention over and against the use of force on behalf of the helpless. Even standing between an agressor and his victim is a FORM of force that most assuredly RILES the agressor in most cases.
If the Holy Spirit can blind and kill, then blinding and killing is NOT unholy, PER SE.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 8/20/2009 5:31:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 8/20/2009 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | D: I'm trying to conceptualize of a Christ-like human being who sees themselves MARRIED TO CHRIST...and sees Christ in themselves and all other humans, re-presents Christ Himself in their being, intentionally trying to blow someone's head and torso to bits in any self-defense or war situation they found themselves in.
C: I'm sure I've miscommunicated. First, let me affirm that I also cannot imagine such a thing! I've tried to convey that any action that is borne of self-defense or national defense or retaliation or anything other than love is ultimately unethical and immoral. I'm honestly pretty much a pacifist, with the exception that if God truly directed me to violence (as he directed Abraham), I hope I would be faithful to set my sensibilities aside and simply obey. I'm NOT making a case here in any way that it's fine as a matter of course to fight back, to destroy, etc. I'm only trying to allow for the exceptional case where God would direct things against my sensibilities, and by faith I would have to affirm that it is indeed a work of love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/20/2009 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
If the Holy Spirit can blind and kill, then blinding and killing is NOT unholy, PER SE.
and...
Corey:
I've tried to convey that any action that is borne of self-defense or national defense or retaliation or anything other than love is ultimately unethical and immoral. I'm honestly pretty much a pacifist, with the exception that if God truly directed me to violence (as he directed Abraham), I hope I would be faithful to set my sensibilities aside and simply obey. I'm NOT making a case here in any way that it's fine as a matter of course to fight back, to destroy, etc. I'm only trying to allow for the exceptional case where God would direct things against my sensibilities, and by faith I would have to affirm that it is indeed a work of love.
Okie dokie. Let's all say that if the Holy Spirit of Jesus decides to blind or kill someone, and let us be in on that (like with Paul and Peter), we would be open and obedient to the Spirit in constant undivided attention, love, and prayer to God...and do whatever God required only in that state. Telelogical suspension of the ethical is possible.
Can we all agree that these are EXCEPTIONAL cases and cannot be used to justify Christians accross the board feeling spiritually "ok" with using deadly force upon ambiguous command?
In other words, if a member of Christ's Body tells me that the Lord is calling them to kill and blind others...they'd BETTER be doing it out of solid undivided attention, love, and prayer to God. If not, it's sin...period. If 100 people or more said they felt the same call...I'd be leery...wouldn't you?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 8/20/2009 7:00:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/20/2009 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Can we all agree that these are EXCEPTIONAL cases and cannot be used to justify Christians accross the board feeling spiritually "ok" with using deadly force upon ambiguous command?
In other words, if a member of Christ's Body tells me that the Lord is calling them to kill and blind others...they'd BETTER be doing it out of solid undivided attention, love, and prayer to God. If not, it's sin...period. If 100 people or more said they felt the same call...I'd be leery...wouldn't you?
J: I totally agree that the cases where force would be appropriate for an INDIVIDUAL would be VERY, VERY small in number. But I think the government's actual ministry is one of deterrence by justice. But, in actual practice, I don't think human government even comes close to executing their divinely-delegated role of force with justice. I can only infer that Paul is arguing that they, like parents, actually result in a lesser of evil, as do imperfect parents, despite their many shortcomings and usurpations. So though we are right to pay taxes for that reason, we can't justify all (or even most, necessarily) of what they do.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/20/2009 9:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: It means what Zach and Greg say it means,
Zach: Last time I checked Greg didn't interpret that passage the same way I do. In fact, for the past one or two years I've been DISagreeing with most of what Greg has to say concerning this sort of thing.
Jeff: ...in which case I have no idea what the OT or Rom. 13 is saying at all.
Zach: This is somewhat relieving. If you had the idea that I was somehow trying to argue WITH Greg, then it makes perfect sense that you'd have to 'creatively interpret' me to be saying something other than the plain meaning of my words.
Once and for all:
As far as I can tell, Greg and I don't read Matthew 5 (or the OT and certainly not Rom. 13) the same way.
Hope that clears it up. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/20/2009 10:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I can only infer that Paul is arguing that they, like parents, actually result in a lesser of evil, as do imperfect parents, despite their many shortcomings and usurpations. So though we are right to pay taxes for that reason, we can't justify all (or even most, necessarily) of what they do.
Zach: Paul makes no reference to 'lesser of two evils' arguments or parenting analogies. Such inferences are risky and have nothing to do with exegesis. We might say that we are arguing THROUGH Paul these things. But the claim that Paul is arguing them has no basis. Paul says that all authorities (and he was aware of the Egyptians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Seleucids, and Romans) are established by God. We today can include Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Andrew Jackson. The claim is that all these are established by God. It is a big stretch to say that these same authorities are somehow endorsed by God. But, knowing how bad the authorities can be, Paul claims that:
"everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
I don't know what greater evil than Nero or Stalin one might have in mind, but regardless, that's not the structure of the argument in Romans 13. And it's definitely not an argument FOR Christian involvement with the authorities. Quite the opposite! He arguing for submission, not inclusion! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/21/2009 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
|
Jeff: It means what Zach and Greg say it means,
Zach: Last time I checked Greg didn't interpret that passage the same way I do. In fact, for the past one or two years I've been DISagreeing with most of what Greg has to say concerning this sort of thing.
Jeff: But isn't it also true that you agree with Greg that the "turn the other cheek" is logically inconsistent with, say, the "eye for an eye" passages in the OT? I'm perfectly aware that you disagree with HOW he works that out.
Zach: And it's definitely not an argument FOR Christian involvement with the authorities. Quite the opposite! He arguing for submission, not inclusion!
Jeff: I agree that you can't get to involvement from the passage. But Paul's RATIONALE for submission and financial SUPPORT (that the state role of "fear" is a MINISTRY UNTO OUR GOOD) requires that it be CONSISTENT with love. If it were actually LESS loving our neighbors to submit to them and financially support them, it would be WRONG to do so. |
Post Edited (Similtude) : 8/21/2009 6:57:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/21/2009 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | "everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Jeff: Sounds to me that Paul is saying that those who rebel against God will bring judgment on themselves. It doesn't say that God will judge them only if they bi-laterally covenant with God TO JUDGE THEM.
Zach: I don't know what greater evil than Nero or Stalin one might have in mind, but regardless, that's not the structure of the argument in Romans 13.
Jeff: It is the fact that Paul paints the role of the government idealistically that shows he wasn't trying to suggest that we submit to ALL governmental commands or laws. He himself disobeyed the government at times. So the point of the passage can't mean to do everything they command on the absurd grounds that everything they command and enforce is actually good or just. It can only be that, despite their shortcomings and usurpations, they still ARE a minister unto our good to SOME extent sufficient to render submission and financial support as BETTER than NOT submitting and NOT providing financial support.
Thus, Paul can't be arguing that we owe the government because we unjustly benefit from them doing evil--i.e., using force--to others. For then, it makes no sense for him to say that we are to render to them their financial DUES in the same breath that he says OWE (same greek root as that in "due") no man anything save LOVE. Paul's argument only makes sense if submitting and providing financial support to the government actually IS the most loving thing to do PERIOD, even GIVEN ALL the consequences of governmental action. And he grounds that conclusion on the deterring effect of the FEAR of their "sword." We don't have to agree with him. But that is his argument.
As I said in that other thread, it may be that UR is the only way to make total sense of it. Or it may be that governments don't just result in greater utilitarian happiness, but in greater degrees of justice, as well, than would be possible without it. In either case, per consequentialism (apart from which we might as well obey God even if He sends us to hell for it merely because He's God), force RESULTS in the greater good, if Paul is saying anything coherent at all. It may be that we, as Christians, still can't legitimately be involved in any use of force (just as priests couldn't marry widows). But that can't be because of some INTRINSIC wrongness of the use of force (any more than marrying a widow was intrinsically wrong for humans or Israelites, per se).
So as far as I can tell from where I'm currently sitting, Greg is judging people on very flimsy exegetical grounds. But who knows, maybe he has some fresh arguments to be made in this forthcoming book that will cause me to abandon my "Newton" for "relativity."
Post Edited (Similtude) : 8/21/2009 7:09:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/22/2009 3:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But isn't it also true that you agree with Greg that the "turn the other cheek" is logically inconsistent with, say, the "eye for an eye" passages in the OT? I'm perfectly aware that you disagree with HOW he works that out.
Z: That depends what you mean. If I am commanded both to take revenge and not take revenge at the same time, then that's inconsistent. But that's missing the point. The point of "eye for an eye" passages was to limit vengeance and the point of "turn the other cheek" is to do away with it altogether. So in that sense they are not inconsistent; they merely represent different stages of fulfillment. If you tell me that Greg sees them as inconsistent, then I hope he means it in the first, ignorant-of-context sort of way. But from what I've read, I'd wouldn't have guessed that he'd say any such thing at all. He's lately been in the habit of holding together what I view as contradictions.
Jeff: I agree that you can't get to involvement from the passage. But Paul's RATIONALE for submission and financial SUPPORT (that the state role of "fear" is a MINISTRY UNTO OUR GOOD) requires that it be CONSISTENT with love. If it were actually LESS loving our neighbors to submit to them and financially support them, it would be WRONG to do so.
Z: Ok. I'm in favor or submission and tax-paying. It is the exact opposite to which I'm opposed: ruling-over and tax-levying i.e. typical government involvement.
"everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Jeff: Sounds to me that Paul is saying that those who rebel against God will bring judgment on themselves. It doesn't say that God will judge them only if they bi-laterally covenant with God TO JUDGE THEM.
Z: Really? It sounds to me that Paul is saying they "bring judgment on themselves." And who is the "everyone" to whom Paul is referring? Is it all primates? All Jews? All Christians? ... WAIT! That's probably the one! Paul was known for writing about Christianity. That's probably what this is about too. Let's look at the rest of the letter to the Romans... ...yep, Christians.
Jeff: It is the fact that Paul paints the role of the government idealistically that shows he wasn't trying to suggest that we submit to ALL governmental commands or laws. He himself disobeyed the government at times.
Z: And that is where we do well to read Yoder. There is a difference between submission and obedience.
Jeff: So the point of the passage can't mean to do everything they command on the absurd grounds that everything they command and enforce is actually good or just.
Z: Of course not! Why are you bringing that up? That's neither my position nor yours.
Jeff: It can only be that, despite their shortcomings and usurpations, they still ARE a minister unto our good to SOME extent sufficient to render submission and financial support as BETTER than NOT submitting and NOT providing financial support.
Z: You've ruled out one alternative and then you jump to "it can only be..." But stop. There are more than two possibilities. We've played this game for some time now. It's not either/or. There are more alternatives than Jeff and NotJeff. You say it can't be NotJeff so it must be Jeff, but before such an argument can work you must show that there are only two alternatives. You haven't done that here.
Jeff: Thus, Paul can't be arguing that we owe the government because we unjustly benefit from them doing evil--i.e., using force--to others. For then, it makes no sense for him to say that we are to render to them their financial DUES in the same breath that he says OWE (same greek root as that in "due" no man anything save LOVE. Paul's argument only makes sense if submitting and providing financial support to the government actually IS the most loving thing to do PERIOD, even GIVEN ALL the consequences of governmental action.
Z: Sure, submission is the appropriate role for the loving Christian. Submission to government (every government, as Paul makes crystal clear, even the bad ones) is consistent with love.
Jeff: And he grounds that conclusion on the deterring effect of the FEAR of their "sword." We don't have to agree with him. But that is his argument.
Z: "...not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." Remember, he's still talking about EVERY governing authority.
Jeff: ...force RESULTS in the greater good, if Paul is saying anything coherent at all.
Z: Unless there are more than your two alternatives.
Jeff: It may be that we, as Christians, still can't legitimately be involved in any use of force (just as priests couldn't marry widows). But that can't be because of some INTRINSIC wrongness of the use of force (any more than marrying a widow was intrinsically wrong for humans or Israelites, per se).
Z: All these "can't" claims. You've ruled out so much without giving any reason why. I think what you mean is that it can't be that force is intrinsically wrong is the way you've imagined. And that may well be true. But how do you rule out the intrinsic wrongness of force itself? You have not presented the argument to support that claim. You just make the claim.
There are three parties described in Romans 13: 1. God 2. "everyone," "you," i.e. Christians and 3. each governing authority (including the bad ones). Paul tells Christians that all authorities (even the bad ones) are established (not congratulated, not endorsed, not established for the purposes of setting an example for Christians to follow) by God. The governing authority is a minister/servant of God that rewards good and punishes evil. Therefore, Christians ought to submit not just because the state can punish them (this of course is obvious to everybody, so let's get on to the interesting thing Paul has to say) but also because the conscience tells us to submit to what God has established (i.e. the government, even the very bad governments that harass God's people unjustly). So we are to 'didomi' give to everyone what we 'opheile' owe, and owe nothing but love, because love is the entire law. Remember that the dark times are almost over, and so correspondingly we ought to get rid of practices that are suited to darkness. Instead we should act as though it is daytime, because look, it already is.
The puzzle of Romans that needs wrestling with, that is to quickly overlooked is presented at the very beginning of the chapter. "There is no authority except that which God has established." The original conversation probably had someone like Nero or one of his predecessors in mind. But that's the puzzle. How can Paul say that the persecutors of God's people are established by God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/22/2009 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff-
Do you think pacifism ultimately reduces to anarchy?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/22/2009 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | I think if you say that force is contrary to love, and if you think loving people is rightly-relating, then, we can't be for state action to the extent that it involves force. And no state can survive if it doesn't wield force.
Now maybe what Greg has in mind is that if enough people are christians, and if they all simultaneously become pacifists simultaneously (which, practically, would mean, I guess, that they cease to vote), that may have some kind of transforming effect on the greater society that would eliminate the need for government. I don't know. But even that seems like an inference without any plausible grounds. THat's not to say that it's false.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 8/22/2009 8:24:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/22/2009 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
Now maybe what Greg has in mind is that if enough people are christians, and if they all simultaneously become pacifists simultaneously (which, practically, would mean, I guess, that they cease to vote), that may have some kind of transforming effect on the greater society that would eliminate the need for government.
What if 236,561,844 professing Christians SAW Christ in reality...and lived that? Seriously. What if all of those Christians really decided it was top priority to live by the Great Commandments and re-present Christ at all times? Imagine the transforming effect.
yeah...Christ's Body being it's true self.
Random Song.
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/22/2009 9:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: What if 236,561,844 professing Christians SAW Christ in reality...and lived that? Seriously. What if all of those Christians really decided it was top priority to live by the Great Commandments and re-present Christ at all times? Imagine the transforming effect.
J: No doubt. But in the absence of such a SOFA, I can't see a way to argue against all governmental use of force. But maybe Greg is arguing not for an absolute view of force, but about a possible way to eliminate the need of it. If that's what he's saying, then I don't see how his interpretation of Christ's words in the Sermon can get him to that. Because Christ was teaching how we are to behave whether or not 236,561,844 professing Christians are simultaneously transformed.
So, to me, the more plausible meaning of the Sermon passage is that made by Paul himself when he quoted from the OT saying to overcome evil with good by feeding our hungering enemies. IOW, that passage in the OT he quoted was completely congruent with the rest of the OT. Thus, so was Christ's teaching, if it had the same idea. And Christ had just said that he hadn't come to destroy the Law anyway.
What shows that Christ did not necessarily use "but I say" as a way of repudiation is, at least, the case for divorce. Christ says there "you have heard it said that 'whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement, but I say ..." But he doesn't go on to show the impropriety of the writ of divorcement. Rather, he addresses the grounds for divorce. So the "BUT" is not meant to imply a negation of what was stated theretofore, but rather a qualification and further explanation of it. Thus, the same can be true of the "turn the other cheek" passage, rendering it consistent with Paul's comments in Rom. 13.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/23/2009 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm a bit surprised at D's rejection of violence and still not sure if it's absolute or not. It hasn't been in the past. And D, you've always offered against pacifism the arguments being offered here and did so without feeling it undermined our being like Christ. When did you change?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/23/2009 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Capital Punishment, Part 5 18:12August 20, 2009
Why does God allow imperfect and fallen human beings make life and death decisions? Have Christians permitted the atheists to define our doctrines? Who has a greater problem justifying being against the death penalty, the Christian or the atheist? What does iconography have to do with the death penalty? All this and more...
Capital Punishment, Part 4 16:12August 13, 2009
What are the pitfalls of a "Christian State"? Can or should the State govern according to the Gospel? Can "forgiveness of enemies" be a valid principle of civil order? What do the Fathers of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches say about the relationship of Church and State in regard to civil order and capital punishment?
Capital Punishment, Part 3 15:27August 07, 2009
In Part 3 of the series, Steve begins a discussion of the Church and State. How do we view Judaism as a theocracy? Is Jesus anti-death penalty? What is the purpose of civil authority? Is the State constrained to function on the level of the Gospel and should it?
Capital Punishment, Part 2 15:38July 31, 2009
In the second part of the series Steve discusses the Flood as the dividing line in human history in regard to the meaning of death, fear and capital punishment. Did the Mosaic Law abrogate the covenant with Noah? What do the atheist and the Christian have in common in regard to capital punishment?
Capital Punishment, Part 1 10:30July 23, 2009
Steve begins a four part series on "Capital Punishment". In Part One he chronicles his work with emotionally disturbed children and the beginning of his shift from radical pacifism to a reconsideration of the death penalty.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2009 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting.
I've had over 5 years of experience with emotionally disturbed children. I worked as a Mental Health Technician in a psychiatric hospital for children and adolescents during seminary and after. Sexually abused, tortured, homeless....all that. Having to do restraints and all that. Yeah, I didn't like some of those, but those was necessary. Then there was the year as St. Joseph's Home for Children, here in the Twin Cities. So, I know what it means to HAVE to restrain and/or subdue a person for their OWN safety as well as that of the whole therapeutic milieu. I've had my life on the line a COUPLE of times with this...
THAT'S WHY I don't have a problem with NON-LETHAL, LOVINGLY GIVEN FORCE that is grounded in the safety of the assailants and victims.
I learned that there...
But here's the weird thing.
I can even understand the idea of irreversibility of damage to human emotional capacity. And the seeming hopelessness.
There's only one problem.
"With God, all things are possible."
Either we believe this or we don't. Do we really believe some people are TRULY incorrigible?
If so, should we?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 2:12:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2009 1:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I'm a bit surprised at D's rejection of violence and still not sure if it's absolute or not. It hasn't been in the past. And D, you've always offered against pacifism the arguments being offered here and did so without feeling it undermined our being like Christ. When did you change?
I reject unmerciful, unrepentant, non-sorrowful force used in any situation. I affirm conscious, sober, repentant execution of force "in fear and trembling". I don't believe in unconditional "passive pacifism" as Steve talked about. For the Christian, all of this presupposes being completely lead by God's Spirit.
In my stint, I've some staff restain kids in self-serving, ego-centric ways. Smiling while kids are screaming in pain. Didn't like it. At all.
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 8/25/2009 2:16:29 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2009 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | D: I reject unmerciful, unrepentant, non-sorrowful force used in any situation. I affirm conscious, sober, repentant execution of force "in fear and trembling". I don't believe in unconditional "passive pacifism" as Steve talked about. For the Christian, all of this presupposes being completely lead by God's Spirit.
T: Totally agree.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 8/27/2009 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | D - Dude, I am TRYYYYYING...SOOO...HAAAARD to see this. I'm doing the Selah thing. I'm living in it. Feelin' it. Tasting it. I'm in the military. I'm under orders to be in Afganistan. So, I read the Scripture where Paul talks about how he works, but it is CHRIST IN HIM that works through his working. Ok. So I take the thought, go out, and we follow the orders that we are given and, in doing so, end up in combat. Christ in me takes aim at a person I don't know who MIGHT be an "enemy" running accross the street...killing them. But wait Christ in me accidently had a stray bullet hit a 12 year old child in the nearby vicinity that I couldn't see. But hey, Christ in me can't wait for thinking bout that. More people in God's image to kill. Let's throw this grenade now...
I'm NOT trying to be funny or facetious. I just can't see this. Lord Jesus, if this IS how it is, just let us know. For real...
Selah: YEAH... well, that's all we can do!!! just pray!!!
Prayer and.... The B.i.b.l.e. thats just the book for me...cus it answers everything.
I don't know everything...and neither do you and neither does Greg. What you have to do is what you've already done - rely on begging God to answer your questions! I know you know this, but obviously Christianity is not equal to theology. If it's really a "relationship" maybe we should depend more on that than we do our own heads? You asked God to quit being so vague ... I think he'll answer that. God is personal. Wait on the Lord be strong and take heart ...wait on the Lord... He'll answer you... I know he will.
Love you guys more than I can say!
selah.
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love."
~ Soren Kierkegaard
Post Edited (selah) : 8/28/2009 9:30:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 49 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|