 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 1/12/2011 11:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | When we say things certain ways I agree with you guys, and for the most part the distinction between "ownership" and "stewardship" seems to be one of conceptual focus, that may affect how one disposes of resources in his control, but may have little outward effect that someone else can see, unless you set yourself as steward over someone else's stewardship, and tell them exactly what you expect to see out of them. But I have a few remaining questions for Tom and Dwayne about some things.
Here's the terminology we used in discussion: stewardship, ownership, self-ownership, absolute self-ownership.
1) I still don't know if you guys mean the same thing by "absolute self-ownership" as you do by "self-ownership"...if not, what would you say are the differences between the two?
2) When talking about some resource in our control, it makes sense to me to say either that someone "owns" that thing, or to say that someone is "steward" of that thing...but when I say "self-ownership" would you want to say "self-stewardship"? That doesn't ring true to me, especially in light of this factor:
If you are a steward, you are managing the property of someone who owns that property (which in our discussion, you guys want to say is true of God alone...and for most practical purposes it is a distinction that has little effect, so I have no problem going along with it)...but when a steward shows himself to be incapable or negligent of accomplishing the owner's purposes (God's purposes)...the owner, if he is rational and moral with concern to his own possessions, will relieve the steward of his duties and either manage his possessions himself or authorize a new steward...
...but now, when we start talking about self...
...that concept of stewardship seems not to work. God may strip a person of stewardship of nearly everything (i.e. some version of hell or purgatory) but God never strips a person of himself. That would be to transgress free will and freedom of conscience. So in this matter at least it seems that each individual person has no higher authority that can be appealed to above himself, against himself, even when to an observer the person is clearly wrong. How else could a person potentially resist God forever? So, it seems to me that self-ownership must be affirmed. Which brings us back to the question of...do you mean something different by "absolute self-ownership" than by "self-ownership"
And once self-ownership is affirmed, and we acknowledge that human beings exist as material embodied beings...can we truly say that a person has self-ownership and disavow his ownership over his own body and the actions that he performs via that body? And if he has legitimate control over some resource (whether we call that control ownership or stewardship) and via self-action he transforms that resource into a more complex, more valuable resource...by what right does anyone else, including any government, take possession of that resource or a portion thereof?
We can hope that any given person will be wide-hearted enough that he will see to the needs of those around him, especially if he has met his own needs. Indeed, we can even say that that is the moral thing to do. And although I have no problem interdicting someone to "stop them from doing" an injustice upon another...I have grave concerns about "forcing them to do" some action that without doing will result in some injustice to another, especially when no line can be drawn between that particular person not doing something, and some other particular person suffering some injustice. The distinction seems to be between directly doing injustice, intentionally bringing about that injustice....and injustice that is incidental to, not caused by some other person.
Again, please understand, I am not intending that this is what I want to see happen, so long as it safeguards my precious property...I have been and have intention to be considerate of people in need around me through my property. It is just grating when someone else sets themselves up as owner or steward over me...or over anyone else for that matter...
I have no problem answering to God. I trust God. This is not about seeking to liberate myself from God. If anything, I desire more direct involvement by God in my matters. Still, I don't understand you guys apprehension about ownership/ self-ownership. Can people do, not wrong, but less than perfectly correct? Sure. Does God interdict when that happens? For the most part, No. Should we interdict, especially in light of the fact that if that person is a steward only, then so are we all stewards only. By what authority does some individual, even when that individual is the current face of some collective entity assert their ownership/stewardship over another person? When a person voluntarily submits by act of will without coercion to the authority of some other person or some collective, I have nothing to gainsay over that. When some person or collective proclaims authority over someone else (again, not in matters of interdicting direct injustice, that is another issue not to be confused with this one) telling them what they must do, by what right or authority do they make that proclamation?
3) If for all practical purposes we mean something very similar with regards to effects, by stewardship and by ownership...one of my concerns, with you guys concern, about coming out against "ownership"...is that you give "mileage" to socialist forces, when by and large you are philosophically closer to those who use the term "ownership" (instead of your preferred "stewardship" ) than you are to the philosophical position of the socialists. And so the socialist advances his agenda because of your terminological considerations. I don't want to interfere with your beliefs when they have grounds, that is why I ask for more clarity about what you guys apprehensions are.
I'm starting to ramble, so I'll leave it here.Post Edited (Asher) : 1/12/2011 10:29:48 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2011 1:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher: 1) I still don't know if you guys mean the same thing by "absolute self-ownership" as you do by "self-ownership"...if not, what would you say are the differences between the two?
Tom: I might have missed part of the definition thing, or can’t remember. But I’ll share what my impressions are now. When I hear “absolute self-ownership” I tend to think of “self-existent” and so only of God. I would think that in order to own your personhood and identity absolutely is to own it essentially and necessarily, like God. “Self-ownership” is a bit less. I would use it to mean “taking responsibility” for my ‘self’.
about your point (2). Good points. Really thoughtful stuff. I agree that “self-stewardship” sounds weird. It’s not meaningless, it’s just not employed and so we’re not used to it. And I also like the idea that since stewards don’t own but only care-take, what the care-take is owned by another and can be taken away from us. But none of us really wants to say God would “take away” or “take back” our “selves” since he owns them and we’re only stewards. As you say, God may strip us of stewardship of many things but we’re not prepared to say God strips us of our soul or existence. That would be annihilationism.
Assuming we use “self-ownership” in the sense of referring to God’s irrevocable gift of life and individuality, this is still a “gift” and still “derived” from and sustained by God. I guess that’s why I’m a bit weary of “ownership” talk. I use it. I’m cool with it. I’m just careful to remind myself and others that we can never forget that personhood is a gift (even if it’s irrevocable) whose continued existence and enjoyment is only participated in by us if we connect to God. So even as an irrevocable gift it’s never disconnected from the giver. Doesn’t this make ‘self-ownership’ significantly different from the mundane way we ‘own’ things like houses and properties and money?
about the connection to socialism (your point 3), I’m just not there. I’m thinking theology and relationship to God. I’m not thinking socialism or ‘What’s the Left gonna do with my theological language?’ Never enters my mind. I’m not heavy into economic theory or politics, so maybe that’s why I just don’t consider those questions. I think they’re legit though. You bring up good points.
Here’s the thing. We don’t need to defend ‘self-OWNERship’ language per se. If it’s only stewardship, it’s stewardship FROM GOD. And that’s no more justifiably violated by others than if we DID ‘own’ whatever it is that’s been usurped. God’s put YOU in charge as steward of yourself and your body. That carries just as much weight as ‘ownership’ when you consider that the stewardship is a) divinely given and b) irrevocable. Might AS WELL own it. So I don’t mind the language. I can transform and adjust on the terms. I just want to maintain the perspective that says all I have, even my body, my very being and existence, are derived from God as a GIFT and that the gift only works well when I recognize this dependency on a moment by moment basis.
There’s another point that qualifies ‘self-ownership’ if you go with that, and it’s that when we truly ‘own’ something it’s ours to dispose of “as we wish,” or at our own discretion. We don’t have to give an account per se of what we do with what is OURS. But this doesn’t apply to our ‘selves’ and our ‘bodies’. Paul says our bodies are not our own, that we were bought with a price, so “honor God with your bodies.” Of course, we are FREE to obey this or not. And that’s only the case because there is an irrevocability to the gift of being and existence. So on the one hand it’s very like ownership (because its irrevocable and ours to dispose of), but on the other hand it’s very like stewardship (because we give an account to God, and you usually give accounts to an authority or owner, who is God in the case of our selves and bodies).
Asher: And once self-ownership is affirmed, and we acknowledge that human beings exist as material embodied beings...can we truly say that a person has self-ownership and disavow his ownership over his own body and the actions that he performs via that body?
Tom: One’s body (and choices) are the only thing I’d say we “own” in the important sense of the word (even though we do get stripped of our bodies temporarily).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2011 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | With 1 and 2, I'm agreeing pretty much with Tom. I'll focus on the 3rd question...
3) If for all practical purposes we mean something very similar with regards to effects, by stewardship and by ownership...one of my concerns, with you guys concern, about coming out against "ownership"...is that you give "mileage" to socialist forces, when by and large you are philosophically closer to those who use the term "ownership" (instead of your preferred "stewardship" ) than you are to the philosophical position of the socialists. And so the socialist advances his agenda because of your terminological considerations. I don't want to interfere with your beliefs when they have grounds, that is why I ask for more clarity about what you guys apprehensions are.
What I stick to is what you (Asher) and I called "covanental socialism" within the Body of Christ, where certain dimensions of private ownership are transformed into a degree of collective/communal ownership. This is basically what I think we find in the early church ala Acts 2:44-45. In the Body, you have people that understand that everything they "own" actually belongs to God, and as such, it will all be held to account by God and is all open for God's immediate use for others. Moreover, they also believe that they are "one of another" in Christ such that sharing--even sacrificial sharing--is the rule.
From what I understood of what you said before, Asher, there is nothing wrong with "covenantal socialism" operating through the Church for the world today. And from what I remember, you seemed to say that "covenantal socialism" was pretty much what went down in the early church.
Am I still right on those things?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/13/2011 9:22:58 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2011 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | |
| Posted By : Asher - 11/20/2010 6:14 PM |
Dwayne: So, would you say that the early church was a community of people who freely entered into convenantal (rather than contractual) socialism?
Leaving out your parenthesized part, yes, I would say that.
You do realize that a covenant and a contract are basically the same thing right? No need to say "rather than contractual"
|
| Posted By : One Love - 11/20/2010 6:35 PM |
Asher:
Why don't you Dwayne, take your stewarded resources, pool them with as many like minded people as you can find...you guys start a capitalist enterprise...and instead of making profits, give all that money to the immediate needs of others.
No one is stopping you from doing that. In fact, every socialist minded person in America could do that right now. Why aren't they? Because the needs of others is not the primary objective of socialist thought. Political control is.
No one is stopping the AMERICAN CHURCH from doing this. So why aren't we? Wouldn't that be an actual exercise of the "covenantal socialism" of Christ's Body in and for the world?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
| 
| Posted By : Asher - 11/20/2010 6:42 PM |
Dwayne: No one is stopping the AMERICAN CHURCH from doing this. So why aren't we?
That's a good question.
As an open theist in a pretty much traditional Christian area (Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc) I have not found a single church that will have me, unless I basically agree not to talk about open theism at all. So, I am churchless.
But on the other hand...as a mail man in a small town of about 3,000. I have known first hand those who were in need, and been able to put some of my own resources toward those needs. And there was even one instance when I was able to get a small group from a friend's church to collect for a particular dire need. So, it can be done, but it isn't being done all that often is it? Your point is well made. |
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/13/2011 9:24:01 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 1/14/2011 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: When I hear “absolute self-ownership” I tend to think of “self-existent” and so only of God. I would think that in order to own your personhood and identity absolutely is to own it essentially and necessarily, like God.
Actually D was the one to use the term "absolute self-ownership", coming out strongly against it, which at the time I also asked if something different was meant by "absolute self-ownership" and simply "self-ownership"...no answer then. And if all that is meant by it is what you detail above then O.K. I don't know of ANY libertarians who use the term "self-ownership" with that in mind. Maybe some Nietzcheans would use it rhetorically, but even they know they're gonna die and can't do anything to prevent it, so whether they would even seriously hold to "absolute self-ownership" seems doubtful.
Another thing that may be muddying the waters is that you guys are primarily talking in the field of metaphysics and ontology with reference to owning and I am primarily talking in the realm of ethics and day to day human interaction. In other words, anytime I am talking "ownership" I am not having in mind some set of "rights" that I can enforce against God and hold Him to...with reference to metaphysics I do not see God as an adversary against me in any way, and the only thing of importance I note metaphysically is that God Himself is the one that gave men free-will, including the full range of what can be done because of free-will, and the fact that God will NEVER revoke free-will. No denying the gift status, but then we also have to differentiate between a free gift and a gift with expectation. There are ontological limits to our gift, no matter how broad those limits are. It's not like self-existence was even a possible thing God could have given us as a gift. In Him we live and move and have our being...and given EUR that seems to be a totally free gracious irrevocable gift. So what do we mean by expectation? Obviously the world fabric has a certain identity, it is not infinitely pliable. Part of that identity is the nature and character of God woven right into existence. God expects us to act accordingly, and that is why "owning" is so important to me in the realm of ethics. My or your owning of a thing is as much about telling other people what their responsibility is toward the owner.
Sorry...I am called away, I'll be back later. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 1/16/2011 3:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey D,
Dwayne: From what I understood of what you said before, Asher, there is nothing wrong with "covenantal socialism" operating through the Church for the world today. And from what I remember, you seemed to say that "covenantal socialism" was pretty much what went down in the early church.
Am I still right on those things?
----------
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Totally.
I know this gets confusing because the word "socialism" is operating in both paradigms, but we've GOT TO keep the threads from getting tangled. Covenantal socialism is ONLY possible because their is an underlying framework of freedom. That freedom can exist on purpose, as in societies that explicitly value that freedom and so institute forms to safeguard and protect it...or that freedom can exist incidentally, for example when I was living in Albania there was a high degree of freedom, not because of organization but because of complete lack of organization, the government barely managed to do anything except deal with the most extreme cases because that is all the power that it had. In Roman days there were very few things that the Roman overlords required (paying taxes, kow-towing to dignitaries and their spur of the moment plans, etc)...in other words, although Rome ruled the Mediterranean, their rule was broad but not deep. An average citizen who stayed out of the way in matters political was largely free to do as he pleased. And that is the environment the early church practiced socialism in. Their covenantal socialism only worked because 1) they could operate without a lot of government interference and 2) "covenantal"...individual Christians AGREED to covenant together. But in our day, unlike Roman days, governmental rule and control has the potential to be not only broad, but deep.
When I decry socialism, I am NEVER denying COVENANTAL operations. I am protesting types of political organization that makes COVENANTAL SOCIALISM...IMPOSSIBLE. Socialist political groups undercut the framework of freedom. Socialists are not pro-freedom, freedom is the enemy to their plans. Freedom stands in their way. They do not want covenantal socialism, because with covenantal socialism individuals can say "No" Saying "No" is the right I want to protect...even though I don't want to say "No" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/16/2011 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | | As I see it, the clearest thing the scripture says about government is that it is to promote the highest degree of civility possible for its own society by praising the good, thereby appealing to those who can be motivated by positive motivation, and by resorting to negative motivation (i.e., just recompense) for certain kinds/degrees of wrong-doing. But not being charitable is not a doing.
Maybe the reason why we see no evidence in scripture of God authorizing penalties (i.e., additional taxes for the purpose of wealth redistribution, which are for all practical purposes fines since these monies are not used as wages for State personnel) for NOT being charitable with resources obtained LEGALLY is simply because a government that used positive motivation correctly (e.g., praising collective bargaining as a positive alternative to the FORCEFUL distribution of resources) wouldn't need to use force over non-doing's to obtain the highest possible levels of civility for a society and, therefore, such a resort to force is contrary to the divine purpose of the State.
At minimum, it seems to me that resorting to force before attempting non-forceful modes of wealth distribution (like advancing a rhetorical campaign in favor of collective bargaining, etc, publicly acknowledging that non-collective bargaining puts too much economic power into the hands of the rich [as per the proverb "it takes money to make money," etc]) may be analogous to violating just war criteria by restoring to force too soon. This is seemingly what scripture means when it says humans are QUICK to shed blood. I.e., they are typically TOO quick to use force due to their ignorance and/or selfishness. They could, more often than they think, overcome evil with good.
In any case, it seems to me that the consistent absence of scriptural language that expresses or implies that God intended the State to forcefully redistribute wealth (except in the cases of restoration of stolen property to its owner and taxation for the purpose of paying State "ministers") implies that the use of force for wealth redistribution, like the use of force for war, must be justified with as compelling grounds as can be mustered.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 1/16/2011 10:02:20 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:24 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 |
|
|