 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Matrix Qs: An Ethical Plight of a Guardian | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 8:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | Darnit. Like we didn't KNOW this would happen, right, Brandon?
JEE:
If Jesus was a sinner, then we are all absolutely without any real and lasting hope. What a blasphemous thing to say about Jesus, that He was a sinner. The Bible says He was tempted in all ways just like us, yet WITHOUT sin.
Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
The God-complicit-in-evil crowd must respond with, "Yeah, right, Jesus...we know you REALLY didn't come to do these things out of pure love, they're all just means to an end, serving your inherently complicit-in-evil ulterior motives. You really aren't sincere or as well-informed as we modern existentialists, or else you wouldn't be so naive as to think your coming is something genuinely altruistic and benevolent. How naive to think anyone could truly be free from sin!". How this philosophy differs practically from Manicheanism is not at all clear--both viewpoints basically equate humanity with sinfulfness.
Jesus had a very specific, focused mission on earth, and it was NOT to set up or promote a utopia YET. To say He was complicit in evil or that he perpetuated societal evils is just plain blasphemy. As if he was in ANY way unjust to anyone. I honestly can't believe that anyone who really knows Jesus would even entertain this slanderous notion about Jesus. God help us.
This is the way one can see it. Jesus ALWAYS had an orientation of obedience and reverence towards his Father and loving disposition. Insofar as this is true, Jesus truly was sinless IN THAT he never willfully, knowingly, or intentionally went against God's will. He always sought his Father's will and to accomplish that will. For Jesus, his Father was the ultimate source and goal...and THAT is an orientation that doesn't allow for sin in the personal sense. It is here we can fully affirm that Christ never gave into temptation, never placed himself over and against God's will, and that Christ never had an unloving disposition towards anyone...
..however...
When we think of Jesus "taking on the sin of the world" we have to think more BROADLY than we have been before. The act of God's incarnation was God's free choice to be placed in a fallen existence where death, pestilence, and all kinds of satanic evils occur. It was always a free choice to become an 'agonized participant' in some form of fallen human system that has demonic elements that unjustly oppress or unjustly benefit others. God REALLY got into our mess with us! This is why it's not just the Cross that's the supreme expression of love, but the WHOLE ChristWork, from Incarnation to Ascension!
Damn the word "complicity", Brandon. It causes too many friggin problems, as you well remember. It gets people too hung up. I don't know WHAT word that can be used, but whenver we say "complicity", some people think of God and Christ being active accomplices to sin...and that's not what's being said at all. I don't friggin CARE what word we use...as long as this sense is conveyed...
God wasn't playing around when God decided to incarnate Godself into the world. God knew what God was getting into, from beginning to end, and loved us so much that God was willing to do it. This is God working WITHIN and THROUGH broken cisterns to accomplish God's purposes. Nothing less and nothing more. To incarnate Godself into a human being in a particular place, time, and gender necessarily meant for God to be willing to be, in some way, SUBJECT to the laws, patterns, gains, losses, and aims of the governmental structures where he lived. To meaningfully participate in that social structure would mandate that. To the extent that the Incarnated God benefited from social systems that uses fallen means to provide those benefits, God was using what was evil and turning it around for good. But this action DOES have consequences for God! God is NOT blissfully unaware of the corruption of the systems that God is using for God's purposes. But because of God's covenant with Godself to work with and through us, God has little to no choice in the matter. God has signed on with our sinful, fallen world for the long haul...and has to deal with it as God can. This is the 'AGONIZED PARTICIPATION' of God in sinful, human institutions for divine purposes! To be sure, God's ultimate telos is to overthrow EVERY kingdom of the world, supplanting them with God's kingdom. But until that time of full consummation, God has to work in and through broken tools. And God is not ashamed to OWN the ramifications of this commitment.
*********************************
Corey:
Here's where I'm at: I must say I find this PROFOUNDLY disturbing, and not in the convicting sense where God calls me to go through something difficult. This just seems plain wrong to let such Hegelian-esque constructions have more epistemic weight than (again!) the properly basic beliefs I hold about God and his testimony to me about scripture. I know you guys are into SK, which makes this all the more incomprehensible to me. SK wouldn't be impressed with such "proofs".
By now I'd hope you'd not dismiss me as close-minded conservative whack, but hey, I'll live with that if I have to. If it comes down to it and you consider me a weaker brother, fine... treat me in accordance with Romans 14 then. This stuff you're apparently promoting will shipwreck my faith. I hope I'm just misunderstanding your position.
Yes, I'm experiencing an "existential fit" problem here, not to mention deep cognitive dissonance. In line with the topic of this thread, I don't believe in the world you're claiming is real. I want to stay out of that Matrix. Look, I'm all for aligning myself with reality... I don't want to live in deception any more than anyone else. And that's my point... as far as I can discern, this picture of Jesus being presented is a deception (shall I just say heresy, or does that make me a "lame"
Corey, check it out. Let me affirm something. You are NOT the only person to struggle with this idea. The idea of Jesus being in ANY way participatory in ANY type of fallen, sinful ANYTHING takes people aback. But it's usually because...
1) there's a LESS ROBUST SENSE of sin that is being used to categorize what is being said
2) the full ramifications of God's incarnation as a particular human being with respect to Satan being the "god of this world" are NOT really considered.
3) it's somehow assumed that Christ's necessary participation in sinful, human structures as a full human being EQUATES to Christ displacing God as the source, center, and telos of his life (which is the core of what sin is)...when it does NOT!
It is fully understandable that people struggle with this initially. (I cannot TELL you how Paul Eddy struggled with this at first...and how LONG the struggle was!!) However, this is something that has to be faced IF we are going to take the claims we are making about Satan being the ruler of this world and all the world's governments in a serious way...AND... Jesus being a real, human being who was a male Jew under 2nd Temple Judaism in a Roman province who BENEFITED from Roman prosperity in some way.
Think about it, Corey. Let's use SK terms, alright. NO ONE is saying that Jesus had ANY "despair". NO ONE is saying that. Jesus was a complete self to related to himself properly IN the power that established him (His Father). What we are saying is that Jesus was a "despair-free" being who ended up participating in institutions and structures that THEMSELVES were 1) "misaligned from God" and 2) causing OTHERS to be in despair.
I GOT IT! This will help...
Think about the Matrix again. The Matrix was an "evil system", right? It caused people to be in a kind of "despair" in some sense. It lulled them to sleep about who they really were. Ok, think about Neo, who was completely against the Matrix. He KNEW himself, his goals, and his ultimate purpose: to end the war. He was able to USE the POWER of the Matrix for his own Matrix-destroying ends, correct? Now, insofar as Neo HAD to use the power of the Matrix, Neo was an "agonized participant" in it's power. He would not be able to fly, and do all that crazy stuff...if BILLIONS of people weren't attached to and giving the Matrix an immense amount of power and substance for it's nefarious reality! I would doubt that this fact was lost on Neo. Note that Neo was NOT pro-Matrix. He was thoroughly ANTI-Matrix. But he's STILL using it. And that's use has some ramifications for him.
Just take your time. Think it through, Corey. It's a new idea, I know. And it's very dissonance producing at first. Just try in on for a while.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 11/3/2005 7:28:51 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems that what's desired is to say something like this...
Ok. Let's just say that God USED sinful structures or that God WORKED THROUGH sinful structures, but not that God was, in any way, RESPONSIBLE for or AFFECTED BY that use.
To me this is like saying...
Let's say that God used dirt and worked through using dirt for God's purposes, but not that God, in any way, ever got dirty.
I'd much rather say this is the price that an ALL-HOLY God was willing to pay for us: being fully incarnated into a world ruled by Satan, permeated with sin-filled human rulership systems and ideas! God takes ALL this upon himself for OUR benefit, and God endured this travesty and pain, all in love! It brings a new DEPTH to a reality that we already believe...that Christ took ALL our sin upon himself and really understood what WE have to deal with as people living in the world but not of the world!
That's all we are saying.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Nother point, real quick.
A view of sin that ONLY deals with one's individual relationality to God, oneself and one's neighbor (when that neighbor is encountered) will have problems with this idea espoused above. A view of sin that encorporates SYSTEMIC EFFECTS that affect whole societies, and the individuals within those societies to the extent that they either benefit from or or oppressed by those societies will have MUCH less of a problem with the ideas.
This question becomes: Which is the more adequate view, biblically and hermeutically speaking? What I mean is which view of sin is consonant with biblical testimony, and also RELEVANT to our experience in an urbanized, corporation-influenced, globalized society. Rome wasn't a podunk town and got MUCH of it's goods at the expense of other civilizations. What does this MEAN for people who claimed Roman citizenship (like Paul)...or benefited from Roman road systems (like Jesus)?
These considerations are very important!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 11/3/2005 7:30:34 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Ok. I don't have any real problems with the picture you've just desribed. But doesn't this go back to the distinction I tried to make earlier that Jesus was in "the matrix" and used it further his agenda, for the ultimate good of all involved: he was forced to participate in, but did not advance or promote the matrix per se. And I'm compelled to draw this line in the sand: his participation in the matrix in no way was sinful (a misrelation with God, he always did PRECISELY what the Father willed). Does this get us closer to agreement?
Ok. I need some help.
1) Explain to me how Jesus could be in the "Matrix" of Roman culture bolstering it IN ANY WAY.
2) We are agreed that Jesus never had misrelation to God. DEFINITELY agree there! What do we call his unwilling, or even possibly unknowing participation in sinful structures and institutions? What term should we give that? Fallen? Complicity? "Agonized Participant"? What?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
But doesn't this go back to the distinction I tried to make earlier that Jesus was in "the matrix" and used it further his agenda, for the ultimate good of all involved: he was forced to participate in, but did not advance or promote the matrix per se.
See, that's the problem. It seems that we are trying to say that a person can PARTICIPATE in evil systems knowingly to promote an ANTI-evil system agenda...but in no way bolster that evil system. I am having a hard time seeing that as possible.
Example. Huge benefits were given to the Civil Rights Movement because White supporters of the cause were able to go into certain places that people of color were just not allowed to go. They used their own undeserved privilege to help tear down the system that gave them that privilege...
however...
the fact still remains that they USED that privelege and in so doing (and certain unwillingly) gave some form of credence and respect TO the system in the eyes of others. Had they wanted to they could have opted out of the whole thing saying, protesting loudly to the opposition saying...
"We won't go ANYWHERE our people of color siblings cannot go. We will not honor this system as legitimate to ANYone in ANYway."
This may have put them on the moral high ground, but they would have been less helpful (if not mainly irrelevant) to the cause. I can see this brave brothers and sisters as "agonized participants" in the evil system of segregation and exclusionism. They didn't fool themselves into believing that their "hands were clean" BECAUSE of what they were doing.
I believe the same is true for God. God is not so concerned about the conception of his moral purity that he is NOT willing to get involved as God needs to to redeem us. God is the "agonized participant" par excellence!
I feel like the best we can say is as follows:
God is NOT pro-Kingdom of darkness. God is completely, throughly, and constantly AGAINST the Kingdom of darkness. However, because of God's dealing with us, God at times USES kingdoms of this world (which are steeped in the Kingdom of Darkness) for divine ends towards the growth of the Kingdom of God. When God does this, he may bolster the Kingdom of darkness (via the kingdoms of this world), but ONLY instrumentally...and he plots and actively works for it's ultimate elimination.
Thoughts?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 11/3/2005 7:52:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/3/2005 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
Umm…I think that part of the problem that Christians have with this is that this is an INDIVIDUALIZED READING of sin. In other words, they are basically reading sin strictly in terms of being PERSONAL sin, when in reality sin ALSO occurs on a systemic level. This doesn’t necessarily mean that “structures” are evil in themselves, but that the structures reflect sinful patterns what we call “structures” or “powers.”
JEE said...
How this philosophy differs practically from Manicheanism is not at all clear--both viewpoints basically equate humanity with sinfulfness.
And
Meph Man said...
This is God working WITHIN and THROUGH broken cisterns to accomplish God's purposes.
John, John, John…O-M-G! If ANYTHING, the incarnation has ELEVATED HUMANITY (giving humanity dignity) and the material (not to mention you are being VERY DEFEATIST here). I wrote this on another board about popular SECOND RATE ART. Learn from Jesus riding on the ASS.
B-Man said...
…a Father Patrick Ryan wrote in the Jesuit weekly, “America,” how he has had second thoughts about his own early disdain for popular Catholic devotion to the “Sacred Heart of Jesus.” Ryan talks about how modern folk tradition crosses cultural barriers:
“The inoffensive, even weak Jesus with His heart exposed says something to those who might be mystified by a Rouault image of Christ mocked or Rembrandt’s justly famous Head of Christ. Jesus subjected to the humiliation of bad artistic presentation pours Himself out even for those with little or not aesthetic sensibility…How often does the Son reveal the Father in tasteless posters and plastic statutes that glow in the dark? More often than I once supposed. The humility of the Messiah who followed the royal style of entry suggested by Zechariah, “meek, and riding on an ass,” continues to touch us in the popular imagery of the Sacred Heart.”
As Mouw goes on to explain, though it is quite obvious that Holloway’s view of the incarnation (and hence aesthetic beauty) is grounded in biblical motifs, it isn’t as obvious that Ryan’s is FROM Holloway’s perspective. For example, how does “good taste incarnationalism” assess Mother Teresa’s often expressed testimony that she see’s the beauty of Jesus in the dying bodies on the streets of Calcutta? Jesus hidden beneath “dreadful disguise?”
Though David Well’s complained about making “unholy alliances” with popular culture in his books, “No Place for Truth” or “Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?,” in which he says that Christ never tailored his teaching to whatever the popular reception will be, Mouw wonder’s if we have sometimes passed over this too quickly.
“Is it fair to say that Jesus NEVER “tailored” his teaching to what he thought “the popular reception would be?” asks Mouw? He observes that St. Augustine said that Jesus (and the apostles) performed miracles in order to get the attention of common folk who were not “fit to reason about divine and invisible things.” And while Mouw feels that Augustine may have overstated the case, Jesus approached people in terms of the particularities of their context. Christ’s ministry, as Calvin said, is described as “nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us.”
In the end, when you think of it, the incarnation is a profound exercise in divine tailoring, which I think gets passed over too easily (and denigrated) by Christian intellectuals and critics of the arts. I think, on this, we should be more charitable with regard to both sides of this issue. On using the word “complicity?” Well, now…THIS is where Modes beautiful and awesome wife, the one and only MISS Electra, spoke years ago, of how art can speak in ways that “technical language” can’t. In other words, there are other ways to “see the truth.” I’m afraid you are right though Meph Man, the word “complicity” just doesn’t do justice to what you have tried to convey, which is why I tried to DESCRIBE it.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/3/2005 10:41:37 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/3/2005 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
I'm on board with this, but still processing. On another board Meph and Modes and I discussed a distinction between being personally culpable and being personally responsible. (e.g. although I am not personally culpable for the power structures that I benefit from, I am nonetheless personally responsible for my relation to that structure.) I wonder if that sort of language would be helpful here. Or not. Right. I'd agree with that. And then you start thinking about what guys like Miroslav Volf and McGrath talk about with us not only affecting culture but us also being AFFECTED BY culture i.e we change culture but culture also CHANGES US...wow... I can't help but think Meph Man might be on to something here when he talks about Christ in terms of his humanity and things like knowing whether he was the Son of God or being complicit in sin, etc. He just seems to be bringing that out Christiologically.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/3/2005 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | Brandon,
To have validity, the entire line of argument must ASSUME a concept of unavoidable societal sin.
"The powers," "the rulers of this age," and "the god of this world," were NOT something Jesus endorsed or benefitted from unjustly, or in a way that made him culpable.
Jesus said "my kingdom is NOT of this world (system)."
Now if you guys could show how Jesus was in any way unjust to anyone in his business dealings as a carpenter, you might have a point in all this. How is there anything intrinsically sinful about engaging in the business of carpentry? How did Christ benefit from the power structures of his day? Even if he did, if his motive was truly always benevolent (unsinful), then it would not follow that he participated in or in any way tacitly endorsed organized sinfulness.
Taking on the sin of the world was His ATONING, redemptive mission. He did not become SINFUL in doing this; He became a SIN OFFERING (atoning sacrifice).
Gotta run,
John
P.S.: It is not clear how I am being defeatist here. To the contrary, I affirm the potential for holiness and wholeness of all people, while it seems you and Meph do not even believe Jesus was holy or righteous in all His ways. Talk about defeatist!
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world... http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/3/2005 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
BBBCanada said...
But you do realize though what Meph Man is saying here Corey? How can Christ not be IMPLICATED in sin or BOLSTERING sin or the Kingdom of Darkness. Please give a REAL example of how Christ was guilty of this, Brandon.
Thanks,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I'm on board with this, but still processing. On another board Meph and Modes and I discussed a distinction between being personally culpable and being personally responsible. (e.g. although I am not personally culpable for the power structures that I benefit from -- I didn't choose to be a white guy, I am nonetheless personally responsible for my relation to that structure -- as a white guy, how am I going to deal with this?) I wonder if that sort of language would be helpful here. Or not.
The question becomes:
Are relational dynamics that bolster systemic evils morally CULPABLE acts, in and of themselves?
That is to say, if a person knowingly operates within an evil system in such a way that they, at times, bolster the evil system...but toward the end goal of overthrowing said evil system, are those times of bolstering the evil system MORALLY CULPABLE situations?
Let's use a concrete example.
When Jesus referred to the Gentile woman as a "dog". Matthew 15 21:28 and Mark 7:24-30. There is no mistaking that this was an ethnic slur upon the woman, heightening the Jew/Gentile separation. There's little doubt that the disciples around him would have appreciated THIS attitude much more than they appreciated Jesus' episode with the Samaritan woman! Why? Because they...and obviously the woman...understood the intense sense of division between the Jews and Gentiles, if not the rampant ethnocentrism and nationalism that grounded it...and it was THIS CONTEXT in which the statement was made. Now, I'm assuming that all of us would say that heightening an ethnic separation using racial slurring is NOT representative of God's kingdom!
So, if someone wants to argue that Jesus did that for the specific purpose of demonstrating the womans' great faith in the midst of slight adversity (with which I agree), does the act itself become "good", just because there was a "greater good" end that the act was a part of? In other words, should Jesus' ethnically charged remark be considered an INHERENTLY good thing...BECAUSE Jesus said it? Or would Jesus be, in some way, morally culpable for any pain or hurt that the remark may have initially caused the woman?
Did Jesus misrelate to his Father in what he did? No.
Did he participate in a thoroughly ethnocentric, fallen model of human relations by what he did, with possible hurtful consequences for the woman? Yes.
That Jesus is responsible is given. But...is Jesus culpable for the latter thing?
You tell me, Corey.
Just thinking this through.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 11/3/2005 12:30:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Some clarification:
This is NOT chiefly about trying to get some "dirt" on Jesus. This is about trying to get a biblically adequate harmartiology that deals not only with individual sin, but also participation in CORPORATE and SYSTEMIC sin. Is it possible that our views of sin have been far too uni-dimensional?
Jesus was never existentially misrelated to God. This is the core of sin. However, Jesus WAS fully incarnated. He WAS a person among a "people of unclean lips" in that time...and Jesus DID bolster the Roman government by being in under Roman rule. I don't think that Jesus would so separate himself from identification of being a Galilean Jew, just to preserve some sense of self-righteousness.
I'd opt to say that Jesus was an "agonized participant" in this sinful world...and that this has implications that should not be ignored, as it shows the DEPTHS to which the love of God extended to us.
(We are SOOO off the Matrix topic. We gotta get back on that soon..)
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/3/2005 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | |
John,
I don’t know how much clearer Meph Man has tried to explain this. I mean the WHOLE Carlie thread was about this. The highest read thread on these boards to date!
OK. On an economic scale. Say you go to the local mall and do some shopping. You pick out a pair of nice Nike Air Jordans—you know, the one’s with that little basketball pump on the tongue? LOL! You buy them. You wear your new Nike Air Jordans for comfort, for style, and you get a great feeling wearing these puppies, especially when you cruise around town in your BRAND NEW Chrysler 300 Series car. When you take them off at night before going to bed on your nice BRAND NEW $2000 Serta bed spring mattress, you wipe them down and put them high on your shelf so as nothing will happen to them.
Now, let’s say that your nice Nike Air Jordans were made in a sweat shop somewhere in China. Meaning, little boys and girls were working LONG BEGRUELLING hours--in the same position-- and all they were getting compensated with was a bowel of rice at the end of a 18hour day. This IS OPPRESSION. Question. As you NOW KNOW THIS, would you:
A. Continue to buy Nike shoes?
B. Continue to wear the brand new Nike shoes that you JUST bought?
C. Encourage others to not buy them?
But wait, it doesn’t stop there. You see, that new Chrysler 300 Series car that you just bought? Well, let’s say that it was, “Made in America.” But let’s also say that parts of your car came from other parts of the world from under the same conditions that your Nike shoes came from? Question. As you NOW KNOW THIS, would you:
A. Continue to buy Chrysler 300 Series cars or ANY product from Chrysler?
B. Continue to drive your Brand New 300 Series Chrysler car or ditch it (you can’t really SELL it because you would still benefit from doing that)?
C. Encourage others not to buy them or ANY product or part related to that car?
But wait, it doesn’t stop there. You see, that new Serta bed spring mattress that you just bought? Well, let’s say that it was, “Made in America.” But the parts that make up that mattress that you are sooooo thoroughly enjoying and getting a good nights sleep off of (not to mention your back is not doing bad either) were made from other parts of the world in under the same conditions as the Nike shoes. Question: As you NOW KNOW THIS, would you:
A. Continue to buy Serta bed spring mattresses?
B. Continue to sleep on your Serta bed spring mattress?
C. Encourage others not to buy them or ANY product or part related to that mattress?
Now, let’s say that Nike did everything legit but decided to get into the Serta bed spring mattress business which continues to exist off the oppression of slave labor or the Chrysler car business which continues to exist off of slave labor or Chrysler did everything legit but decided to get into the Nike shoe business which continues to exist off of slave labor or Serta bed spring mattress business which continues to exist off of slave labor or Serta did everything legit but decided to get into the Nike shoe which continues to exist off of slave labor or Chrysler car business which continues to exist off of slave labor. Question: Would you continue to buy ANY of these products?
Now, imagine this not simply with three products but with millions, perhaps BILLIONS of products. Not only are they simply interconnected and ultimately connected to the slave labor, but they also supporting the guy you are buy them from, lifestyle that JUST MAY SO HAPPEN TO BE SINFUL AS WELL (not to mention everyone else who gets a cut from the sale of the product).
You, see, unless you want to go the route that oppression is not sinful, it is very hard to see how you are not being an accomplice in the sin of oppression just as Nike or Chrysler or Serta would be. Yes, they are more DIRECTLY involved (sure outta the millions of Nike shoes bought what good does it do for ONE person not to buy shoes, so you don’t think you make that much of a difference), but THAT is not the point. The point is that you were in some way, shape, or form implicated in the sin, whether it was the sin of oppression or the sin of someone’s lifestyle. Your best bet in order to not be implicated is that you should take a shuttle to the moon. But guess what? Even here you would be implicated because you need a shuttle that is made of parts that WHO KNOWS WHERE EACH AND EVERY MINUTE part came from, not to mention the computers back at ground control in Houston or Florida, not to mention the men and women, not to mention the buildings and where each and every little part came from to house the men and women of ground control, not to mention the housing for the shuttles themselves, etc, etc, etc…
Again, the global system is highly vast and complex that we would have to be omniscient to know an ‘nth of the fallenness that we “profit” from. It would seem to me that to some extent, that the more we are involved in the world, the less our ability to know, much less change the “evil structures.”
On being defeatist. I said that it was defeatist in the sense that if the incarnation hasn’t elevated humanity then what? It is basically equating humanity with sinfulfness (your point). The incarnation elevates the material. It gives it a higher status because Christ thought it worthy enough to enter this form. I’m not undermining the mission or action or teleos by saying that Christ does this. But you strip away from the teleos when you ignore this. Anything outside of that tends toward defeatism.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/3/2005 1:26:37 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/3/2005 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
So now you're claiming Jesus lived in the lap of luxury, oppressing people? You've got to be kidding. (And no, I wouldn't knowingly buy products that were built by oppressive companies, but whether I would or not is not germane to the question of what Jesus would do. You guys still have not shown how He ever did such a thing).
If the Incarnation involved complicity with evil on Christ's part due to some sort of inevitable societal sin that was necessary as part and parcel of His humanity, then it is not clear at all HOW Christ's coming elevated humanity at all.
If on the other hand it is true (as I am saying) that Christ was truly sinless, righteous, and holy in all His ways (which is the plain expression of scripture and is a foundation stone of all orthodox Christian doctrine concerning Christ), then it is clear how humanity has been elevated.
If on the other hand Christ couldn't help but endorse, condone, promote, or otherwise advance evil in some way by coming to earth, then humanity=sinfulness (the Augustinian/Manichean view). God should've said "Damn!" instead of "Good!" when he looked at Adam after creating him.
about Jesus "dog" reference in the case of the Syrophoenician woman, from The IVP Bible Background Commentary by Craig Keener:
7:24-30 A Gentile Woman's Faith
If “unclean” foods such as pigs and dogs were no longer unclean (7:16-19), neither were *Gentiles. Although Jesus wins all his controversies with the religious authorities in Mark, he allows himself to be persuaded by a Gentile woman's desperate retort. This story would encourage Mark's Gentile readers, who were being persecuted for a faith that many simply regarded as a Jewish heresy.
7:24-26
Jewish people did not expect much faith from pagans, especially from pagan women. Like Sidon, Tyre belonged to ancient Phoenicia, and the most prominent woman from Phoenicia in the *Old Testament was the wicked Jezebel. But another Phoenician woman who petitioned Elijah in the same generation received God’s favor for her son (1 Kings 17:17-24). Greek culture had long influenced Syria, and many Greeks had settled there; the citizen class of the Phoenician republics Tyre and Sidon was thoroughly *Hellenized. Thus she is both Syrophoenician and Greek.
7:27-28
Jewish people did not regularly call non-Jews “dogs,” as some commentators have argued. Rather, Jesus is making his point by way of illustration, as wise teachers in his day often did. Worthless food would be cast to the dogs (cf. Ex 22:31). In Jewish Palestine, dogs were regarded as scavengers, but in well-to-do households influenced by Greek custom (more familiar to the Syrophoenician woman), dogs were sometimes pets. Jesus is making an illustration: the children must be fed before the pets, and the Jewish people therefore had first claim (e.g., Ex 4:22).
He is saying that he will not heal like pagan magicians; he wants her to demonstrate faith, specifically faith in the supremacy of the true God. (Her reply takes up his illustration: she concedes the priority of the Jewish people, the children, but protests that even the dogs get to eat crumbs. In so arguing, she indicates her faith that only the smallest fraction of his power is necessary to heal her daughter.)
______________ (end quote)
John's comment: Instead of taunting the woman with a "racial slur" Jesus was instead testing her faith by using an illustration that would be well understood (though apparently not a reason for offense from this particular woman, which fact Jesus was also apparently aware of), to point out the fact that at that time, Jews were the only ones Jesus was "sent to," and that this lady had no basis upon which to make her request, except sheer grace.
John
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 11/3/2005 3:17:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2005 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | John,:
John's comment: Instead of taunting the woman with a "racial slur" Jesus was instead testing her faith by using an illustration that would be well understood (though apparently not a reason for offense from this particular woman, which fact Jesus was also apparently aware of), to point out the fact that at that time, Jews were the only ones Jesus was "sent to," and that this lady had no basis upon which to make her request, except sheer grace.
I know about Keener's commentary article. First, of all this is NOT the major view, by any stretch. Second of all, would you LOOK at the interpretation Keener makes? Let's GRANT the pet analogy, for a moment. Do you not see an obvious hierarchy that's set up between Jews and Gentiles, that had ethnocentric undertones? Undertones that Jesus's entourage would have WELL agreed with. "My kindred are children, your kind are pets"?? Jesus used an COMMON UNDERSTANDING about the relationship of Jews and Gentiles, but this understanding was based on the ethnocentricism felt by the Jewish disciples...that is later REPUDIATED.
Are you REALLY trying to argue that Jesus' statement was a HARMLESS statement as understood by a Gentile...that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with an unhealthy sense of Jewish ethnocentricity pervading then contemporary Jewish thought??
Dude...
************************
(emphasis mine)
Meph said: However, Jesus WAS fully incarnated. He WAS a person among a "people of unclean lips" in that time...
John replies: SEE!! I knew you were trying to say Jesus was a sinner. "Unclean lips," in Hebrew usage, was not an expression of HUMANITY, it was an expression of real sinfulness (see Isaiah 6).
Man, what the hell is wrong with you? Seriously. You are weirding out here. All I was saying is that Jesus was a Jew who can be identified with his people and their lost state. He did NOT try to set himself up over and against his people, even though he himself was never misaligned with God. He spoke the truth about himself, but never for some self-righteous reason.
Dude, stop it with the "heresy hunter" act. You're scaring me. Sheesh.
*************************
Look here, John. You need to get something really straight. The POINT is NOT that Jesus is a "sinner" such that he disqualified himself from being the spotless "lamb of God" Jesus was NEVER, EVER, EVER misaligned from the Father's will and the Father's heart, in word or deed!. The POINT is that Jesus being a real human being in human particularity HAD to deal with being in a fallen world with sinful, evil structures. That the holy God would be willing to do such a thing for creatures who don't even reciprocate God's love is UNFATHOMABLE. And it's PART of the sacrifice that God made to redeem us.
STOP looking at this as a "slam" on Christ, for goodness sake.
Damn!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/3/2005 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | | |
You ARE weirding out man! I never said that Jesus benefited off of oppressing people. I said that he benefited from the oppression of others. Even still, if he oppressed others, it was for a higher purpose as Meph Man has shown. Dude, I don’t know how you can take Jesus out of his historical located-ness. Or do you simply do some sort of kergymatic type theology? I mean where does he stand? What do you say to the FACT that Jesus used a Roman road to get to some destination and that THAT road was built on the backs of slaves? You seem to want to ignore this. The fact of the matter is that Christ benefited from the oppression of others if ONLY in THIS instance…the list could go on. So I don’t know HOW ON EARTH you can say we don’t know what Jesus would do, when we already have that sort of information.
In terms of not buying from companies knowing that they oppress people? My dear John, you do not realize how much you ALREADY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AND PROFITTED FROM sinful structures, whether they have oppressed people or not.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
Just to let you know, man. That example you used was KILLER and the insights you are highlighting are AWESOME!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | This is for everyone out there who's REALLY concerned about this whole "Jesus participating in evil structures thing" being heretical...
I don't think we are realizing what it means to say that Jesus was NEVER misrelated to the Father in word or deed. This means that there was not ONE POINT in Jesus's life were he placed his own desires and needs above the will and desire of God the Father.
Now...what OTHER PERSON that has existed, now exists, or ever will exist on the planet can say this???
NO ONE. NO, NOT ONE.
It does not remove Christ's unique qualifications AT ALL for being the "spotless Lamb of God" in saying that Christ, being fully human, participated in systemically evil human institutions...
JUST LIKE...
it doesn't remove God's utter holiness by saying that God uses fallen, evil governmental systems for God's purposes! (We DO remember how God used the Babylonians to judge God's people...and how Habakkuk felt about that, right? We do remember Paul's talk about the Roman government under Nero in Romans, right??)
Is everyone understanding this? I want all this to be extremely clear.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 11/4/2005 4:42:35 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Now...back to the Matrix thing...
Corey:
You've GOT to preach on this manichean parallel you see sometime. Seriously a penetrating insight! I would only add that this us/them problem is not limited or unique to the right. The left does this too.
I'd like to do this. I think it's VERY needed. I think it's a serious dimension to what it means to really live IN the world, even as we are not OF the world. There's plenty of implications for this. For example, this may help a significant amount of Christians feel more "easy" about just having good healthy HUMAN relationships with non-believers without making relationships they have with non-believers to be CENTRALLY subversive, covert attempts at Christian conversion to "get them saved". This often puts way to much way too much stress on a conscientious Christian who believes this...and besides, the non-Christian can usually smell this a mile away!
*************************
Also, I do want to focus some on these ideas...
One could imagine saying this:
Because I believe in inclusivism and post-mortem-evangelism...and my Muslim friend has been EXTREMELY resistant to the Gospel for a very long time, I will encourage this friend to follow the best, most-life-affirming, God-honoring precepts that Islam has to offer. I'm going to stop trying to actively bring him to Christianity. Following those idealistic Islamic precepts (such as prayer and giving to the poor, etc) may get him closer to finding the Christian God, after all. But I'll also give little tidbits of Christian living via my example that my give him what he needs to see the reality of the Kingdom of God.
or saying this, on another side...
I'm a former Christian. I don't believe in theism anymore, let alone Christianity. But I think the "Kingdom of God" idea is a very good "noble lie" that gives people meaning, direction, community, and purpose in these fragmented life. It's a good life myth to live life by. Unfortunately many people are co-dependently linked to Christianity. Because of this, I wish to stay within Christianity, helping make the best "disciples" I can make...while I give them abilities to think seriously about the content of their belief. Asking the right questions, they may begin to see the absurdities for themselves. If that's the case, so much the better.
What about these perspectives would be right or wrong?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 111 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:00 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 |
|
|