 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 12:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Ok, guys. Need a test group. ESPECIALLY you, Tom. You know Islam.
Here's my thought. I'll try to make it simple as possible.
One thing that both Muslims and Christians agree on is this: Jesus ( Nabi Issa) is a prophet of God who is "divinely chosen to spread God's message."
Basically both Christians and Muslims venerate Jesus as a messenger of God who reveals truth from God.
Next...
Both Christians and Muslims venerate the Torah. From this article...
"No true Muslim of the world can even think of any blasphemous act against the Bible.
According to a tradition of Abu-Dawud, once the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, went to settle a dispute within a Jewish tribe and a special mat was set for the Prophet to sit upon, but when the book of Torah was brought by the people, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, stood up in respect of the Torah and placed the book on the mat which was placed for him and he himself sat on the ground."
Both Christians and Muslims are "people of the Book" in this way, reverencing the Torah as divine truth.
Now...Matthew 22:34-40...
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Here, Jesus is quoting two things from...well, now...the Torah. Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18.
So, you have a divinely-called prophet of God who reiterates two commandments spoken in the Torah...and saying that "on these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." Hmm...
Now, if this is the case, doesn't this mean that both Christians AND Muslims would hold the Great Commandments to be RELIGIOUSLY BINDING upon them because they have the SAME PROPHET communicating the SAME TRUTH from the SAME SOURCE in both religious contexts? Neither Muslims nor Christians would say that the Prophet Jesus who speaks for God should be ignored or disobeyed...especially when He is a Prophet who is specifically referencing the Torah.
Bottom line: It would seem that the importance and priority of Great Commandments spoken by the Prophet of God, Jesus, would be an ESSENTIAL COMMON GROUND between Islam and Christianity. Neither Christians NOR Muslims can ignore Jesus' re-emphasis of Torah commandments WITHOUT implicitly denying his authority as divine prophet.
So...if we were to get a Muslim imam and a Eastern Orthodox bishop...and talk about Jesus (Issa) emphasizing the Torah-based commandments of loving God with all of oneself and loving the neighbor as oneself...there really couldn't be that much difference on THAT issue. They would BOTH have to say that those commandments are AUTHORITATIVE to guide their lives.
Does that make sense? Tom?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/11/2010 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Christians and Muslims the world around actually do already engage in dialogue on this very basis. It just doesn't make the news.
But dialogue like this eventually runs out of steam, or at least tends to. The reason is that the content and influence of folk or popular Islam over and against classical/high Islam is more power. Folk Islam is where Muslims ACTUALLY live and where and how they do life; all the popular beliefs and superstitions that motivate them, and oftn these beliefs predate Islam and are based in animism. Just imagine the difference between biblical Christianity on the one hand and the various folk/popular Christianities that you find in many countries in Latin America. Syncretism everywhere.
So here's the thing. When you read the classical Muslim commentators, they speak very reverently of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And you find the same when you talk to a classically trained Imam who has not yet been indoctrinated by hatred for the West, etc. BUT...for the most part the Islam that RULES on the street, that motivates populations, is folk Islam. And on this level you have much seething hatred of other religions (espeically Judaism and Christianity) and utter disdain for their books. In fact, Musilms believe (because the idea got started based on a misreading of certain Quranic passages), that the TEXTS of both the Torat and the Injil have been thoroughly corrupted (mostly to eradicate predictions of Muhammad that WERE in the original texts) and therefore are not to be trust. So it's difficult to continue profitable dialogue on the basis of what the Torat or Injil say since these texts no longer represent the word of God.
Joseph Cumming (josephcumming.com/) (former A/G missionary and now working with Miroslav Volk at Yale's Center for Reconciliation: yale.edu/faith/rp/rp.htm) has written that both Christianity and Islam share a single common ethical core that ought to be the bedrock for continuing dialogue and reconciliation, and that core tenet is the Golden Rule of "Love of neighbor as one's self." Here's his (their) Common Word declaration (http://yale.edu/faith/acw/acw.htm: several A/G signators!) He's gotten heat for this, because frankly one doesn't really find the Golden Rule in Islam. Usually one appeals to Muhammad's saying "No one of you has faith until you love for your nighbor what you love for yourself." But here the question really is what he meant by "neighbor" (a question Jesus had to clarify JUST SO THAT people would grasp the unconditional and universal nature of love, which WASN'T established yet). And some/many Muslims will argue that the implicit rule here is that a Muslim's neighbors are only other Muslims. And then Christians will point out that Muhammad did anything BUT love non-Muslims as he loved himself.
But regardless, I think it's difficult to name a single tenet that can serve as a universal ground for dialogue that ALL Muslims will buy into. You have to go out and FIND Muslims who WANT to dialogue because they love peace, are interested in Christianity, or whatever. If they WANT to talk, and they already RESPECT others than themselves, then you don't need to name a "common tenet" that bind our conversation together. What binds you together is your common humanity and sharing the planet. It's the necessity of living together.
But you're right. It's got to center (for us) on and around Jesus and his message. That's the way to go!
The other difficulty is that both Christianity and Islam are AT HEART missiological. Some complain (about attempts at dialogue) that they're necessarily disengenuous because dialogue demands that one not "target" another as a "potential convert," and once Christians or Muslims relinguish their passion to see others converted to their faith, they've already abandoned something crucial to their faith and are therefore denying that which they're in dialogue about.
My thing is that there is no one type of "dialogue." Some engagements in dialogue are so watered-down and anemic you couldn't stay awake through their discussions. Others have some life to them.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 9/11/2010 11:24:41 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/11/2010 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: In fact, Musilms believe (because the idea got started based on a misreading of certain Quranic passages), that the TEXTS of both the Torat and the Injil have been thoroughly corrupted (mostly to eradicate predictions of Muhammad that WERE in the original texts) and therefore are not to be trust. So it's difficult to continue profitable dialogue on the basis of what the Torat or Injil say since these texts no longer represent the word of God.
Jeff: Exactly. And if that motive for eradication is accurate, it's another example of why people are never united by texts alone--self-interest is always coloring the glasses. Look at constitutional interpretation; same problem there.
Tom: Usually one appeals to Muhammad's saying "No one of you has faith until you love for your nighbor what you love for yourself." But here the question really is what he meant by "neighbor" (a question Jesus had to clarify JUST SO THAT people would grasp the unconditional and universal nature of love, which WASN'T established yet). And some/many Muslims will argue that the implicity rule here is that a Muslim's neighbors are other Muslims, period. And then Christians will point out that Muhammad did anything BUT love non-Muslims as he loved himself.
Jeff: Indeed. I think I would go farther and say that there is a possibility that Christ was not merely clarifying who our neighbor is. Consider Paul's injunction that we "speak truth to our neighbor, for we are members of one another." I think the context there shows that "neighbor" might actually mean fellow-believers. So maybe what Christ was saying is that all humans are our neighbor IN SOME SENSE, but that, even so, that doesn't mean all people can be treated the same irrespective of their relationship with us. It's just that we love a person to the EXTENT/DEGREE that we can, given the nature of the relationship. We keep peace as is POSSIBLE. And so on. For I am loving when I give taxes to subsidize a state that wields God's sword of vengenace as well.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Usually one appeals to Muhammad's saying "No one of you has faith until you love for your nighbor what you love for yourself." But here the question really is what he meant by "neighbor" (a question Jesus had to clarify JUST SO THAT people would grasp the unconditional and universal nature of love, which WASN'T established yet). And some/many Muslims will argue that the implicity rule here is that a Muslim's neighbors are other Muslims, period. And then Christians will point out that Muhammad did anything BUT love non-Muslims as he loved himself.
Jeff: Indeed. I think I would go farther and say that there is a possibility that Christ was not merely clarifying who our neighbor is. Consider Paul's injunction that we "speak truth to our neighbor, for we are members of one another." I think the context there shows that "neighbor" might actually mean fellow-believers. So maybe what Christ was saying is that all humans are our neighbor IN SOME SENSE, but that, even so, that doesn't mean all people can be treated the same irrespective of their relationship with us. It's just that we love a person to the EXTENT/DEGREE that we can, given the nature of the relationship. We keep peace as is POSSIBLE. And so on. For I am loving when I give taxes to subsidize a state that wields God's sword of vengenace as well.
All this seems as simple to me as the Good Samaritan story.
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
Samaritans and Jews were considered "enemies", right?
Do y'all mean to tell me that there can actually be problems with both Muslims and Christians agreeing about the meaning of what Issa is doing there? This story cannot be accepted by Muslims or Christians on a "folk" level at all?
I think that Jesus would want us to treat ALL people like the Samaritan here..."irrespective of their relationship with us." Wouldn't you agree, Jeff?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/11/2010 2:37:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I think Jeff agrees that believers are to treat everybody the way the Good Samaritan treated the man who was hurt.
So in other words...we are to treat everybody who is "hurt" or in need with unconditional compassion. Unconditional compassion and mercy is EXACTLY what the Samaritan showed to his hurt Jewish "enemy." Are we all in agreement on that? Unconditional compassion and mercy.
"Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful"
--Jesus, Luke 6:36
The "neighbor" is the one who shows mercy LIKE GOD (the Father) DOES. We are not to look around for who fits our criteria for "degrees of neighborliness"...we are to BE neighbors to those around us!
Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
**************************************
Tom:
But at the same time it seems that there's a "special" treatment toward fellow-believers going on too. That would make sense of passages like "Do good unto all, especially to those of the household of faith." If "doing good" is a single volume one-brand meets all way of acting, then what's the point of "especially"? I think that's Jeff's point--doing good to fellow believers may sometimes LOOK different than doing good to those who aren't a part of Christ's body. What d'ya think?
Well, considering that Baptism and the Eucharist is supposed to be essential to identifcation with Christ's Body, I suppose that there would be some "special treatment" towards fellow-believers giong on...particularly in the arena of the Eucharist and Holy Spirit-given gifts Christ has given to His Body for the edification of one another as members of His Body. Not just anyone gets that "special treatment"...only the Body. But good is done "unto ALL" along with that.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/11/2010 2:42:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | How about we do it like this.
Is there any LEGITIMATE reason that a person who authentically believes that "Jesus is Lord" could possibly have for REFRAINING FROM expressing unconditional compassion and mercy to one's neighbor, even one's enemy?
Is there any?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/11/2010 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Is there any LEGITIMATE reason that a person who authentically believes that "Jesus is Lord" could possibly have for REFRAINING FROM expressing unconditional compassion and mercy to one's neighbor, even one's enemy?
Is there any?
J: Here's the thing. We have to make sense of the legitmacy of the State. Paul ties owing no one anything but love right in with OWING (see greek for "dues") taxes to the State for the ministry of deterrence (which is the opposite of what we would normally consider mercy) unto GOOD. Maybe the only way this makes sense is if UR is true. But I see no way to get around it.
All love doesn't look alike. God is love and yet He avenges. Indeed, if God did not avenge, He could not authorize the State (i.e., "appoint" the authorities). Nothing God does or authorizes (e.g., State action) is ANTI-love.
But, yeah, everyone should treat the Samaritan the same way. There is no reason not to. But State action is an attempt to raise the degree of justice and, thereby, augment the human GOOD in a utilitarian way. It can never assure the degree of justice that God is capable of, because some law-breakers will never be brought to justice even with a perfectly just State. But it is better than anarchy in a UTILITARIAN sense.
IOW, as I see it, it is State justice that brings about the end of utilitarianism. Trying to calculate it apart from justice can never do better over the LONG run. That's what I take from the scriptural statements about the State.
So there will be actions that all individuals should do (like help the Samaritan). But there will also be actions that ONLY the State should do--except, possibly, in very extreme, extraordinary circumstances. E.g., Parents will love their children qualitatively and quantitatively different than they love other children. There's nothing wrong with that. But these kinds of distinctions will differ from person to person.
It's absolutizing anything other than the Golden Rule that gets us into trouble. The WHOLE law is summed up in love thy neighbor as thyself--not unconditional mercy or anything else. I might not believe I should receive mercy in SOME instances. Paul said he wouldn't oppose State punishment for himself if, in fact, he had been guilty as charged. But he wasn't. So he opposed it. But the golden rule, then, would imply that Paul would not oppose State punishment, PER SE, for those guiltly of that crime. I see no way to get around these distinctions. Love can be done by either mercy or justice/judgment, depending on what the OTHER CONSEQUENCES of those actions are known to be.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/11/2010 3:28:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/11/2010 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | T: BOTH of these, Jeff's point is, are MERCIFUL if motivated by love.
J: Right. It depends on how you define it. If we say that love, by definition, is merciful, then chastisement and vengeance must also be merciful. But the thing is, wouldn't most people think of vengeance as the opposite of mercy? So it's easy to start talking past one another if we're not defining our terms the same. That's why the golden rule, to me, is so much clearer. I would think most people have an experiential sense for what that means that renders it hard to misconstrue.
We, as universalists, can see, in some sense, EVERYTHING as mercy. But most people are not universalists and, therefore, will never see it our way. They will use terms in the more conventional sense. And we need to be careful about that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | T: BOTH of these, Jeff's point is, are MERCIFUL if motivated by love.
J: Right. It depends on how you define it. If we say that love, by definition, is merciful, then chastisement and vengeance must also be merciful. But the thing is, wouldn't most people think of vengeance as the opposite of mercy? So it's easy to start talking past one another if we're not defining our terms the same. That's why the golden rule, to me, is so much clearer. I would think most people have an experiential sense for what that means that renders it hard to misconstrue.
Here's what's in play here:
1) Love your enemies and do good to those who do evil to you.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
3) Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
For the Christian, none of these can be "left out" of how we live. Period. Not if Christ is our Lord. Basically, Christians are to do the above without any conditions because of the Lordship issue. So the concern is not about whether or not we are to do these things. It's how love relates to lawbreaking deterrence (chastisement, vengeance, judgement, etc).
Now, to me, the only way that there is a problem is to say that lawbreaking deterrence (including incarceration) is essentially mutually exclusive from unconditional compassion and mercy. Like to do one is necessarily refrain from doing the other. Like having unconditional compassion and mercy upon oneself necessarily means not having any experience of "pangs of conscience" and self-accountability in the face of doing wrong. I really don't think that's so. I believe that lawbreaking deterrence has an bi-polar assymetrical relational unity with compassion/mercy where compassion/mercy is the "marginal control" function that shapes, guides, and contextualizes the activity of lawbreaking deterrence. This is just another way of saying that all of our lawbreaking deterrence has Christ-like compassion and mercy as it's ground and circumscribing reality.
How does this look at ground level? Let's say that a cop has to arrest a suspect for raping a 4 year old boy. Now there are different ways that the officer can go about this. He can be indignantly beligerent with his authority, lording it over the rapist because of the lawbreaking...using more force than absolutely necessary and all that. But he can also see the rapist as a fellow human being in need of God's compassion and mercy JUST LIKE HE DOES...and treating the lawbreaker accordingly: with empathy and respect. Basically, treating him with MORE GRACE than the murderers actions in and of themselves would dictate in any conventional sense. Is the arrest happening? Yes. Is the rapist going to face the legal consequences of his actions? Yes. Is there unconditional compassion/mercy exhibited by the officer in that situation? Yes.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/11/2010 5:43:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
So it's easy to start talking past one another if we're not defining our terms the same.
As far as terminology, I like the Kabbalistic terms of Ahavah (Lovingkindness, Giving), Yirah (Restraint, Judgement), and Rachamim (Compassion, Mercy). Let's stick with the example of the police officer and the child molester.
Ahavah that is not in equilibrium with Gevurah would be like the cop above basically letting the rapist get off the hook totally, "forgiving him" of his crime, not trying to give the victimized child (and his loved ones) any justice.
Yirah that is not in equilibrium with Hesed would be like the cop above "bringing the criminal to justice" with all kinds of unnecessary energy and force, not trying to give the murderer any rights or respect.
Tiferet is when Ahavah and Yirah in bi-polar assymetrical relational unity with the "marginal control" on Ahavah. This would be like what had been described above where the cop empathetically fulfills his duty of justice while treating the rapist much more mercifully than his actions seem to warrant.
Actually, let's heighten this. Let's say that the guy that raped the 4 year old boy actually hurt himself while trying to flee from the police officer. Ahavah out of whack would have the cop taking the rapist to the hospital, taking him inside and leaving him in their care with no thought at all about upholding justice. Yirah out of whack wuold have the cop taking the dude directly and painfully to jail not giving a damn how hurt the rapist was. Rachamim would have the cop taking the rapist to jail (if possible) while caring very intently for his injuries and his physical well-being. --------------------------- Rachamim
"Mercy"Rachamim is the spiritual state associated with the sefirah of tiferet. Rachamim follows the attributes of ahavah and yirah as the power to synthesize their two apparently opposing forces, the desire to give and the will to withhold.
Ahavah sees all as potential recipients of its benevolence.
Yirah proceeds to judge each potential recipient, likely finding him unworthy of receiving.
Rachamim is the sense of true empathy with the other's soul in his present life situation; and although objectively he may appear unworthy, rachamim penetrates beneath and beyond this relatively superficial objectivity and judges him worthy in essence. Thus we find the idiom of our sages that God in His judgment of Creation, stands up from the throne of severe judgment and sits on the throne of mercy.Though the gift of ahavah and chesed may be quantitatively greater than that of rachamim, the gift of rachamim is qualitatively greater. From rachamim, one gives of his very self to the other--for his empathy with him is so great that he feels that the other is an essential extension of himself. To serve God with the attribute of rachamim means to ever recognize God as our "merciful Father" and constantly arouse in our consciousness His mercy for us, His children, to redeem us from our state of exile.
---------------------------------------------------
Using the terminology above, I would definitely say that God unconditionally expresses "rachamim" or "mercy" to his fallen Creation...and he expects us to do the same to other sin-sick human beings. God truly IS "merciful" to us and wants us to be "merciful" to others and ourselves like He is to us.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/11/2010 6:09:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Love of God
We applaud that "A Common Word Between Us and You" stresses so insistently the unique devotion to one God, indeed the love of God, as the primary duty of every believer. God alone rightly commands our ultimate allegiance. When anyone or anything besides God commands our ultimate allegiance – a ruler, a nation, economic progress, or anything else – we end up serving idols and inevitably get mired in deep and deadly conflicts.
We find it equally heartening that the God whom we should love above all things is described as being Love. In the Muslim tradition, God, “the Lord of the worlds,” is “The Infinitely Good and All-Merciful.” And the New Testament states clearly that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). Since God’s goodness is infinite and not bound by anything, God “makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous,” according to the words of Jesus Christ recorded in the Gospel (Matthew 5:45).
For Christians, humanity’s love of God and God’s love of humanity are intimately linked. As we read in the New Testament: “We love because he [God] first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Our love of God springs from and is nourished by God’s love for us. It cannot be otherwise, since the Creator who has power over all things is infinitely good.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/11/2010 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Is the arrest happening? Yes. Is the rapist going to face the legal consequences of his actions? Yes. Is there unconditional compassion/mercy exhibited by the officer in that situation? Yes.
J: I'm just saying I think pacifists would disagree. But that's because they define mercy differently. What we can say much more clearly is that if the golden rule is TREATING people like we would want to be TREATED, then a police can do a great deal of things that would violate the pacifist ethic and still be practicing the golden rule by that definition. God only requires of us according to what has been given.
If a policeman is acting with a certain amount of force with a good conscience towards God, he is not violating the golden rule. Because then he would think it right that he, himself, be treated that same way if he were the criminal. And this, in turn, is because he could conceivably trust that the utilitarian-oriented objective of the State is also SOMEHOW to EVERYONE'S (even the criminal's) benefit in the long run.
But in the meanwhile, many people will not see State treatment of criminals as MERCIFUL. Indeed, when James says mercy boasteth over judgment, I think he's using the word "mercy" in just that conventional sense. He's saying that we as individuals are right to be merciful to those who owe us money, e.g., in some cases. But the State, on the other hand, can require we pay them their "dues" without exception and still be right in doing so, because their very PURPOSE is to deter justly.
We'll never rid the human vocabulary of that conventional sense of the term. So we need to be clear as to how we're using it in everday discussion. So I would think a Muslim could tend to think of the more violent Koran passages as analogous to the role of the State, even though we wouldn't. This is the problem with texts. Because it's hard to rule out ALL forceful action, violent texts can't be seen to be contradictory to the golden rule MERELY because they're violent.
If the State is a legitimate institution, the more pacifistic view of love can not be accurate. Only UR can TOTALLY explain how State action (including the killing involved in capital punishment and war) can plausibly be considered better for EVERYONE--even those unjustly killed by the State.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
What we can say much more clearly is that if the golden rule is TREATING people like we would want to be TREATED, then a police can do a great deal of things that would violate the pacifist ethic and still be practicing the golden rule by that definition. God only requires of us according to what has been given.
If a policeman is acting with a certain amount of force with a good conscience towards God, he is not violating the golden rule. Because then he would think it right that he, himself, be treated that same way if he were the criminal. And this, in turn, is because he could conceivably trust that the utilitarian-oriented objective of the State is also SOMEHOW to EVERYONE'S (even the criminal's) benefit in the long run.
This is why this doesn't work to me. If you have a policemen who relates to himself dysfunctionally and uses his own dysfunctional self-relationality as the standard by which he treats others, that's a BIG problem. If said policeman has character issues of either licenciousness or legalism, it just gets passed on to others. It's just like the narcissist who, in justifying his emotionally detached activity in a situation, say "I treat you no differently than I would want to be treated in this situation." That's not saying very much because the narcissist actually has self-worth issues...and projects those out to everyone else.
The Golden Rule doesn't just stand by itself...nor was it ever to do so. The Golden Rule, Christianly speaking, stands with the Great Commandments. Loving one's neighbor as oneself is ALWAYS to be taken into the context of how God loves us and how God's love for us circumscribes how we self-relate. Once I love God (because he loved me first), THEN from that perspective, I can treat someone as I would like to be treated...from the perspective of being a person who is loved and given mercy by God.
See what I'm saying?
Just because someone doesn't think that they deserve mercy for something they have done doesn't mean they are right. Police officers included. 
Christian police officers would have to deal with all criminals knowing...
1) God loves the criminal
2) they themselves constantly need (and receive) God's love, compassion and mercy
and...
3) God wants the officers to give love, compassion, and mercy to the criminals they apprehend JUST LIKE they've received it from God.
Then the Golden Rule can work. That's way different than just using one's own standard of justice upon others and thinking that's cool.
****************************************
Jeff:
So I would think a Muslim could tend to think of the more violent Koran passages as analogous to the role of the State, even though we wouldn't. This is the problem with texts. Because it's hard to rule out ALL forceful action, violent texts can't be seen to be contradictory to the golden rule MERELY because they're violent.
Again, if the Golden Rule (Do to others what you would have them do to you) ONLY WORKS RIGHT if it's contextualized by a healthy self-relationship ground in being loved and given mercy by God. Isn't that what the parable of the Wicked Servant is all about?
‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/11/2010 8:08:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/11/2010 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/byantoro
Christ the Eternal Kalimat  An Indonesian Perspective on the Person and Identity of Jesus Christ
Start date: August 2008 - 572 minutes, 48 seconds
in 18 episodes
In this podcast, Fr. Daniel will concentrate on the identity of the 2nd person of the Trinity - Jesus the Christ. Is He who He claims to be - Very God of Very God? Jesus is the Eternal Kalimat - Arabic for Word or Logos in Greek.
Fr. Daniel was born in a Muslim home living with his grandfather and began attending the Mosque at 5 years of age. As a young man, he invited Christ into his heart and was baptized into Dutch Reformed Protestant Christianity – the only Church he knew at this time taking the baptismal name of Daniel. He then became very active in witnessing for Christ and he wanted to be an evangelist or missionary. The young Daniel was bewildered by the plethora of groups and denominations with differing and opposing theological thoughts, traditions and practices. He also began to miss liturgical rhythm of life which he was used to in Islam and set his heart searching towards the ancient Christianity of the East. He knew nothing of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, rather his intuition told him that Christianity was born in the same Middle Eastern milieu as Islam and soon he embraced and was chrismated into the Orthodox Christian Church.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
But in the meanwhile, many people will not see State treatment of criminals as MERCIFUL. Indeed, when James says mercy boasteth over judgment, I think he's using the word "mercy" in just that conventional sense. He's saying that we as individuals are right to be merciful to those who owe us money, e.g., in some cases. But the State, on the other hand, can require we pay them their "dues" without exception and still be right in doing so, because their very PURPOSE is to deter justly.
The State can also have LENIENCY and EMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION in the manner of it's requirements, yes?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:04 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 |
|
|