 |
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 11/14/2010 8:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | Greg talked about "mine-ing". What I thought was very interesting is that he talked about ownership in terms of an ongoing IDENTITY relationship. And, from my perspective, this is exactly right. You can look at children with developing personae, especially growing toddlers, and see the "mine-ing" begin. It happens with humans being the embodied beings they are that personally identify with physical grasping and "mine-ing" of one's body. (See "Philosophy in the Flesh". EXCELLENT book.) What I'm saying with that is that, on some level, there is no way for a human being to get away from a sense of "mine-ing" like Greg described. Don't believe me? Take a 3-year old's candy or toy away from them. What do you think one of the FIRST WORDS you are going to hear. "MINE, MINE!!" 
At the same time, the "mine-ing" activity is what gives human beings a sense of relative independence, autonomy, and power. It provides us with a sphere of influence of which we are self-aware. We wouldn't be able to develop any meaningful self-consciousness as embodied beings without the concept of "mine-ing" to some degree, meaning having an ongoing identity relationship with some things we associate our own sense of self and belongingness with. Given all this, I would say that "mine-ing" PER SE is pretty much inevitable...and yes, does lead to much opportunity and problems. Particularly when a person is identifying themselves with something they "own" which can be LOST (which is everything and anything that can deteriorate or decompose...which is all matter). This goes with the whole "don't put your treasure where rust gets it or people break in and steal" idea. And like Greg says, the more "mine-ing" a person does with all these objects (including their bodies), the LESS ABLE they are to be Christ's disciple. And it makes sense. When one's loyal is so divided up between things, how can the level of "nepsis" be achieved to LIVE OUT Christ's reality in our very being? Corresponsively, the LESS "mine-ing" a person does, the MORE ABLE they are to be Christ's disciple.
The reason that I hit the whole "self-ownership" so hard before is because of these realities that Greg was talking about. To me, the abortion issue hits it square on. Does a woman's body (including a human fetus inside her) belong SOLELY to her or what? Does she have the ability to using "mine-ing" to decide what SHE wants to do with HER possession, her body. And that's just ONE of the issues that comes from the whole "mine-ing" thing. "Mine-ing" or claims to ownership are humanly inevitable...but also hugely frought with potential problems.
But out of this, I thought: Is there ANYTHING that can legitimately be "mined" WITHOUT dividing one's interests and self-relationship? And two ideas came to me...
1) "MY Lord and MY God"
2) "Blessed Assurance, Jesus is MINE..."
3) "God's life is MINE" (Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way)
Now, obviously "mine-ing" is going on here. There seems to be personal identification relationship going on where one is "grasping" or "possessing" Jesus as being "mine". What's interesting is this: Even with the "mine-ing" activity with Jesus (Think "Acquistion of the Holy Spirit" even...), to say MY Lord and MY God/Creator is to implicitly "submit" oneself to what is "mined" because of the nature of Lordship and Godhood. One doesn't OWN or POSSESS Jesus in some autonomous I-can-do-whatever-I-want-with-the-Holy-Spirit-of-Jesus type deal. If that were true, that would make him neither Lord OR God. One has a personal IDENTITY relationship with Jesus such that the supposed possessOR is actually the possessED.
In short, the claims of faith demonstrated above take the already natural "mine-ing" tendency and direct it's application towards the right reality...NEGATING the self-curvature and self-preoccupation that occurs when humans "mine" other MATERIAL things.
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Something else. I believe a healthy distinction can be made between continual reception of the "giftedness" of our existence from God...and our illusory ideas of actually possessing things. And it makes sense on the ultimate level. Even our own freedom to choose for or against God is GIFTED to us by Grace (God Himself working on behalf of Creation)...as a STEWARDSHIP to God BECAUSE we don't "own" it at all anyway. God WANTS to (and does) "gift" us continually...but with we get on the "mine" addiction, we start screwing everything up. James Lorder was huge on that in "The Transforming Moment" and "The Knight's Move."
All this is why I think the IMMENSE WEIGHT that Americans put on wealth creation and retention and radical self-ownership is a major challenge, if not outright EPIDEMIC, in American churches. Hence, my drive and concern about it.
"I don't create anything. I own."
--Gordon Gecko, "Wall Street"
Ok, Asher. Your turn. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2010 8:38:15 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2010 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | http://media.whchurch.org/2010/2010-11-07_Boyd_Exorcism.pdf
I like the pictures there.
ONE MORE POINT: If the tendency for "mine-ing" is left unchecked and undirected in the right way, it will "lock" a human being into BIOLOGICAL HYPOSTASIS. It can do nothing else, if you really think about it. Feel me, Tom? 
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 11/14/2010 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | The only sense in which a benevolent theist could say something is "mine" is in the sense that God GIVES to persons so they can have STEWARDSHIP in terms of the ENDS that God intended for that stewardship/"ownership".
"Who has given unto Him first that it should be recompensed unto him?"
Answer: NO ONE.
Where something is GIVEN, something is REQUIRED. This is a corrollary of teleology. BENEVOLENT teleology just means that the fulfillment of the REQUIREMENT (i.e., the duty entailed in the stewardship) is consistent with and conducive to the highest good of all.
But as we've discussed, a-benevolent teleology can't even ground confidence in apprehension. The very fact that atheists and process theists believe in their own competence to KNOW shows that they really are using the intuition of benevolent/competent theism every time they argue/debate, whether they realize it or not. This is what Porter/Lewis/Plantinga etal argued so decisively--even when/if they weren't totally coherent in certain particulars.
Therefore, that same benevolent theism must, to be coherent, be applied to politics, etc. I think Asher would agree. Politically (which would include economic policy), then, the debate comes down to WHAT has God authorized the "authorities" to do? What, IOW, has He GIVEN the authorities that He will ultimately REQUIRE of them? Clearly they have the "right" to do what we don't, in certain respects.
But what are the LIMITS to their God-given authority? Are they subject to a certain just war criteria for war, e.g.? Peter said to the authorities that "we must obey God over man." That alone, means there ARE limits to what the "authorities" are authorized by God TO DO and that at least SOME of those limits are KNOWABLE to at least SOME people.
So, in a society that gets to VOTE, we have to use the most plausible criteria we can muster for determining the God-given ROLE of the State when determining whether to vote or who to vote for in any particular election. We can debate these criteria. But like all other debates, when we disagree fundamentally, we will find it very hard to communicate clearly to one another.
And here, like in other debates, we will have to be tolerant because of the sheer difficulty of answering these questions in a way where one view seems obvious to all. We are different, and we tend not to see our own relative weaknesses AS relative weaknesses. Indeed, our tendency is to think of what, in ourselves, is actually neediness as NORMAL in a statistical sense. Consequently, we will see other people as the ones who have vice.
This applies to economics. As Paul admitted, some people ARE lazy. Some people ARE greedy. And so on. But determining a balance which is best for the whole is difficult precisely BECAUSE of the diversity of people's sensibilities and relative weaknesses.
My wife and I (as well as my kids) are REALLY different. We talk about this stuff all the time to keep HUMBLE TOLERANCE ALIVE! If it's difficult for people who live together and talk about it a lot, how much MORE difficult is it to get consensus from a whole SOCIETY?
There are no easy answers. But I will use scripture at least to determine some relatively clear limits and work from there. It's inductive, not deductive. It's difficult.
In the end, how we vote (whether we vote), like whether we will defy a military draft on ethical grounds, is not always a no-brainer unless you already embrace principles that RENDER such questions no-brainers. But typically, when that is the case, those principles are not intuitive to most people. And then civility is adversely affected because of it.
Asher has hit the nail on the head. It's the WILLINGNESS to continue the debate and EVALUATE our assumptions HUMBLY in the interest of relational harmony that can get us at least SOMEWHERE. It delights God when this is done, however small the impact on society as a whole--the whole "cup of water" in the "name of a disciple" thang.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/14/2010 9:28:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2010 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
The only sense in which a benevolent theist could say something is "mine" is in the sense that God GIVES to persons so they can have STEWARDSHIP in terms of the ENDS that God intended for that stewardship/"ownership".
"Who has given unto Him first that it should be recompensed unto him?"
Answer: NO ONE.
Where something is GIVEN, something is REQUIRED. This is a corrollary of teleology. BENEVOLENT teleology just means that the fulfillment of the REQUIREMENT (i.e., the duty entailed in the stewardship) is consistent with and conducive to the highest good of all.
Amen, amen...and amen. 
Stewardship goes along with saying that God is the "giver of all good gifts"
*******************************************
Similtude:
Politically (which would include economic policy), then, the debate comes down to WHAT has God authorized the "authorities" to do? What, IOW, has He GIVEN the authorities that He will ultimately REQUIRE of them? Clearly they have the "right" to do what we don't, in certain respects.
But what are the LIMITS to their God-given authority? Are they subject to a certain just war criteria for war, e.g.? Peter said to the authorities that "we must obey God over man." That alone, means there ARE limits to what the "authorities" are authorized by God TO DO and that at least SOME of those limits are KNOWABLE to at least SOME people.
Ah...but if you don't think of your life and ownership as "gift and task" (SK), then whence the sense of duty or responsibility inherent in honoring limits set by a higher authority. If atheism is true, and subjectively speaking, everyone is their own god that owns their own life, what claim could anyone make on anyone else.
But with the the idea of a Creator, all that's possible.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal..."
********************************************
Similtude:
So, in a society that gets to VOTE, we have to use the most plausible criteria we can muster for determining the God-given ROLE of the State when determining whether to vote or who to vote for in any particular election. We can debate these criteria. But like all other debates, when we disagree fundamentally, we will find it very hard to communicate clearly to one another.
To me, the most plausible criteria HAS to be equality in inherent human dignity and worth before a gifting Creator. You can't get a real, enduring idea of stewardship without it, from what I see.
******************************************
Similtude:
And here, like in other debates, we will have to be tolerant because of the sheer difficulty of answering these questions in a way where one view seems obvious to all. We are different, and we tend not to see our own relative weaknesses AS relative weaknesses. Indeed, our tendency is to think of what, in ourselves, is actually neediness as NORMAL in a statistical sense. Consequently, we will see other people as the ones who have vice.
This applies to economics. As Paul admitted, some people ARE lazy. Some people ARE greedy. And so on. But determining a balance which is best for the whole is difficult precisely BECAUSE of the diversity of people's sensibilities and relative weaknesses.
One thing that I'm sure that all Christians will agree on is that Scripture says that "you are not your own", MEANING that we belong to God in Christ. However that works out, that fundamental ABSENCE of self-ownership should be there, yes? In other words, I am not to shut down my love for a person just because they have lazy, greedy behavior. Why? Because even though I'm responsible for what lazy, greedy people may steal, it's NOT "mine"...because the only way I can "own" something is through my body...and I don't even own THAT, Scripturally speaking.
************************************
Similitude:
My wife and I (as well as my kids) are REALLY different. We talk about this stuff all the time to keep HUMBLE TOLERANCE ALIVE! If it's difficult for people who live together and talk about it a lot, how much MORE difficult is it to get consensus from a whole SOCIETY?
There are no easy answers. But I will use scripture at least to determine some relatively clear limits and work from there. It's inductive, not deductive. It's difficult. In the end, how we vote, like whether we will defy a military draft on ethical grounds, is not always a no-brainer.
Exactamundo on determination of "relatively clear limits" from Scripture. As an American Christian, I see these as binding....
"...all men (people) are created equal..."
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's."
From my perspective, these statements are FAIRLY CLEAR and have many important implications on how one sees one's responsibilities as a Christian who happens to be an American citizen. What do you think, Jeff?
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 11/14/2010 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | D: From my perspective, these statements are FAIRLY CLEAR and have many important implications on how one sees one's responsibilities as a Christian who happens to be an American citizen. What do you think, Jeff?
J: No doubt about it. It's not a coincidence that even Jefferson, who wasn't a Christian, had similar ideas as we have. Benevolent theism is a MUST for rationality.
Christianity has the additional benefits of providing answers to difficult philosophical questions (because of the plurality of the godhead) and explaining certain historical claims in the most inductively plausible way.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/14/2010 9:39:20 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2010 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Listened to the sermon again. Particularly 15:10-19:00.
Hmmm...Tom. How about "stewardship" of one's free creative expression being their God-given "hyparcho", such that they "come under to bring about something new", specifically what they get to mean to God. Whenever we personally lay claim to Jesus as Lord and God, He lays a claim on us. Our free creative expression is ongoing, genuinely co-creative relationship...but only as STEWARDship, not OWNership. In other words, unless we "come under" Christ's Lordship and Godhood FOR OURSELVES, we cannot "bring about something new" with respect to that relationship with God
You like?
************************************************
Similitude:
In fact, the very things Greg DOES advocate take LOTS of time and money. And time IS money. So I would think his approach (which I would not argue is wrong: it is quite plausible, though not, IMO, for reasons having to do with postmillenialism, etc) would literally IMPLY that we shouldn't waste time with politics since there is a more EFFECTIVE use of that very time.
That's pretty much what Greg says when he says that the "Church should be the Church" doing works of kindness while letting the political activists do what THEY do. What gets me...and it always has...is that Greg has a strikingly NON-SYSTEMIC way of looking at these things. When you ask Greg "What do we do as the Church that has NO political implications or has NO complicity in State evils at all?"...you'll just get a non-answer.
It's the same problem when I tried to discuss issues of Jesus' unwilling complicity in the Roman State (render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's) and the Jewish religious authority (were women, Samaritans, or Gentiles allowed to read Isaiah in the synagogue?) a LOOOOOOONG time ago. To try to make Jesus absolutely sinless meaning having NO COMPLICITY in State evils whatsoever by some kind of individualistic "opting out" is absolutely preposterous. Jesus, as a person under Rome's reach, USED the Roman roads, right? Jesus, as Jewish male, subversively USED the Jewish paternalistic, nationalistic religious structure, right? What could Jesus have done such that he had absolutely NO "blood on his hands" just by where and when he was born?
I will never forget that I was talking to a (White) Bethel prof one day. And he said that if Jesus was in any way complicit in Roman or Jewish systemic sin...then he cannot be Lord because then he would be a sinner. If you look carefully, this is the standard White evangelical way of looking at how individuals relate to social ills. (See "Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America" ) It's actually believed that one can "opt out" of social, systemic sin by personal piety and intention. It's my view that Greg takes this all-too-common evangelical perspective, turns it AWAY from race issues...and places it UPON political issues.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2010 10:27:45 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2010 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | D: It's the same problem when I tried to discuss issues of Jesus' unwilling complicity in the Roman State (render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's) and the Jewish religious authority (were women, Samaritans, or Gentiles allowed to read Isaiah in the synagogue?). To try to make Jesus absolutely sinless meaning having NO COMPLICITY in State evils is absolutely preposterous. Jesus, as a person under Rome's reach, USED the Roman roads, right? Jesus, as Jewish male, subversively USED the Jewish paternalistic, nationalistic religious structure, right? What could Jesus have done such that he had absolutely NO "blood on his hands" just by where and when he was born?
J: I think this gets to Tom's minimization/maximation approach. A benevolent person has to work within a system to even impact it for good to any DEGREE. But it does take wisdom to get really GOOD at that. And God only requires of us as He has thus far given to us. So just because a novice isn't doing as well at that wise interaction within the system as a wiser person doesn't mean the novice isn't sinless IN THE SENSE that he/she is being faithful to what has thus far been given them.
This is why I can say I don't suppose Zach is wrong for opting out of politics, per se. For as I said, I think there are good reasons for thinking there are better uses of our TIME. What I would argue against is the notion that political involvement is wrong, PER SE. That seems, as you say, to prove too much.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2010 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Righteousness is not doing a pre-defined list of specific do's and don'ts. It's loving optimally GIVEN the SOFA you're in. And that's why wisdom is different than mere knowledge. It means knowing WHAT to do in circumstances you've never even been in before and for which the options for your volition may have never yet been contemplated. I doubt David ever contemplated eating shewbread prior to his need to adjudicate the propriety of that action.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/14/2010 10:48:20 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2010 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
If we DO the Greg-approach, leaving politics alone for a while, we will be more effective than we currently are via political involvement. And ULTIMATELY, we'll have a citizenry that will vote in a way that can positively CHANGE politics, itself. IOW, maybe Greg's approach can work as the best FIRST strategical step, after which we can re-enter the political scene with greater effectiveness.
That's like an Orthodox priest living monastically for a time as a "strategic step" of heart purification before one gets a parish in a metropolitan area in order that they can re-enter their responsibility "with greater effectiveness." That makes sense. However, I think Greg's perspective is more Essene than EO on that score. I can't see Greg talking about an Army General (or Attorney General, for that matter) quitting for a while for Christian reasons...so they could go BACK to doing what they were, just better. Can't see it. Not with "The Cross and the Sword", I can't...
*************************************
Similtude:
Righteousness is not doing a pre-defined list of specific do's and don'ts. It's loving optimally GIVEN the SOFA you're in. And that's why wisdom is different than mere knowledge.
Excellent point, bro. Knowledge cannot navigate that pathways of complicity in world systems. Only wisdom grounded in love (God).
Get wisdom; get insight;
do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.
Do not forsake her, and she will keep you;
love her, and she will guard you.
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
and whatever you get, get insight.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 189 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:45 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 |
|
|