 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Matrix Qs: An Ethical Plight of a Guardian | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/4/2005 7:20 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
BTW, I'm feeling at ease now that you guys aren't saying anything as radical as it first came across to me. Seriously, though, you've GOT to know that the language first used is going to push buttons... needlessly as it turns out. Why seek the most provactive approach possible? Just a style thing, I guess.
MephEternal said...
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!
This has been one of the major growth areas in my life since college where I basically majored in Campus Crusade for Christ. I came to view EVERY interaction with somebody as a possible opportunity to "share the gospel." I had the internal analogy that we're all on the Titanic... no sense taking time to polish the brass!
You know, as I mentioned on another thread, today I think I'm actually MORE engaged in true evangelism than I was then. In retrospect, I see that I probably actually introduced more barriers to people encountering Christ than I removed. My life's mission is still 100% the Great Commission, but my tactical approach to that has changed. In short, I'd say I've become more Christo-centric, more incarnational.
I can't express how convicting it was for me a few years ago to hear Greg's sermon on the Pharisee and the Prostitute... realizing this is how I've been relating to people. I wept uncontrollably, so broken before God pleading for him to help me be a man characterized by love. So much of my life had been just noise, a clanging cymbal. Post Edited (Corey) : 11/4/2005 6:23:22 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/4/2005 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
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.
For me, this ties back into my old drumbeat about properly basic beliefs. (Sorry! Maybe you're sick of this) Basically, I'm more concerned about these lower-order encounters than (first) teaching higher-order precepts. Its a bottom-up approach rather than top down.
Let's take seriously the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. When people taste this fruit in us, it will reveal in a lower-order sort of way that there's something uniquely good here. Conversely, note that "doctrinal correctness" is not listed.
That's not to say that we are to be devoid of any propositional content in our conversations (which is pretty much impossible anyway) but that the background music needs to be there first. Today I'm more of a musician than a missionary per se.
As for "I'm going to stop trying to actively bring him to Christianity"... hmmm. I assume you mean something like, "I'm going to stop trying to argue and persuade him of the veracity of the Christian faith." If so, cool. But even as I may abandon that endeavor, I'm still wanting to have Christ live through me, and he's all about seeking and saving the lost. I submit it may just be in a more incarnational way than the other model. Post Edited (Corey) : 11/4/2005 7:22:39 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/4/2005 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
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? This second scenario is harder for me to understand what you're desribing. How should I put together these statements:"I'm a former Christian" and "...I wish to stay within Christianity..." Does it mean something like, "I don't believe in the essential doctrines of the Christian faith but want to keep working in a Christian context under the pretense of being one of 'them'." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
As for "I'm going to stop trying to actively bring him to Christianity"... hmmm. I assume you mean something like, "I'm going to stop trying to argue and persuade him of the veracity of the Christian faith." If so, cool. But even as I may abandon that endeavor, I'm still wanting to have Christ live through me, and he's all about seeking and saving the lost. I submit it may just be in a more incarnational way than the other model.
Yep. That's right.
*****************
Corey:(emphasis mine)
This second scenario is harder for me to understand what you're desribing. How should I put together these statements:"I'm a former Christian" and "...I wish to stay within Christianity..." Does it mean something like, "I don't believe in the essential doctrines of the Christian faith but want to keep working in a Christian context under the pretense of being one of 'them'."
Yep. A person who holds Christian belief as a "noble lie" This person would hold that, in a relatively meaningless world, the quest for the "Kingdom of God" and "God as Love shown in Jesus" is as good as anything to do...and is a genuinely good spiritual path to take. So they would choose to "practice" and help Christian faith.
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 8:02:11 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I suppose the KEY principle with all of these is this:
Is it ever okay to help bolster a belief structure to the extent that it helps another person have greater freedom and life-affirming tendency within the belief structure, even if YOU don't hold any REAL belief in said belief structure? If not, why not?
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 8:13:01 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Ok. Let's try this. I don't hold that any actual belief system is just purely false. Every belief system has aspects that I believe align with ultimate reality. Those aspects I have no problems affirming and supporting. However, I would have a problem affirming those aspects which I consider false. To affirm as true something I personally hold as false (or vice-versa) would by hypocritical of me.
hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European Roots.]
Ok. But this is the main point. Is there any time where various levels of hypocrisy are JUSTIFIABLE or ALLOWABLE?
For example, undercover cops, being a spy, "freedom fighter". Stuff like that.
Plato DOES call his thing the Noble LIE for a reason. He realizes that hypocrisy is going on. He just in that believes that it is justifiable in the case he's talking about.
Unless we are going to take some deontological stand that there are NO POSSIBLE cases in which hypocrisy can ever be justified, (and I don't think anyone here is going to do that), then we have to think through what cases there may be where hypocrisy is justified. I'm wondering if promoting life-affirming, spiritually-uplifting, reverential lifestyles are justifiable cases where hypocrisy is justified.
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 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I think of Patch Adams, the movie with Robin Williams.
There's a scene when he gets into the mental institution, he rooms with this guy who is so afraid of these imaginary squirrels that appear in their bathroom at night, that he never goes and he ends up wetting himself all the time. Patch notices this for a time...and then one night does something different. He ACTS as if he sees the squirrels too! Patch dramatically enters into the other guys "reality." But then he pulls out his imaginary squirrel bazooka, a device that's guaranteed to kill the squirrels. He has the other guy to load him with an imaginary shell and BOOM! There's a clearance in the bathroom now! Once the bathroom is "cleared", the guy is able to rush in and use the restroom for the first time in a LONG TIME.
Though the belief itself is skewed, Patch USED it to expand this guy's freedom. Now, the guy could imagine all kinds of anti-squirrel weaponry that would enable the guy to use the bathroom.
What's wrong with this form of hypocrisy...at least in the short term?
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 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
good examples. I'd agree that these are indeed virtuous uses of deception.
Ok. So, what if a non-theist (who was formerly a theist) wanted to remain a practitioner of the theistic belief for basically the same reasons? Just like Patch, though they felt the beliefs themselves are erroneous or heavily skewed, they also may see how human meaning and purpose as well as life-affirming tendency can be garnered from the belief, over and against any type of nihilistic type of life.
Would that person be justified in doing where they were doing?
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 | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/4/2005 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Ok. So, what if a non-theist (who was formerly a theist) wanted to remain a practitioner of the theistic belief for basically the same reasons? Just like Patch, though they felt the beliefs themselves are erroneous or heavily skewed, they also may see how human meaning and purpose as well as life-affirming tendency can be garnered from the belief, over and against any type of nihilistic type of life.
Would that person be justified in doing where they were doing?
Ha! Is this autobiographical? I always suspected you were a closet atheist!  So THAT's what you're up to at WHC! (Kidding of course)
Ok. Makes sense. But this guy is at least not being hypocritical to his worldview (If God is basically on the same par as Santa Claus, it really doesn't matter if you believe in him or not.) Neither was Patch Adams. I still think it would be hypocritical for me to affirm various tenets of Islam, for example. Hypocritical is too mild of a word, actually. Post Edited (Corey) : 11/4/2005 1:39:25 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Ha! Is this autobiographical? I always suspected you were a closet atheist! So THAT's what you're up to at WHC! (Kidding of course)
Heh. If it was autobiographical, do you think I'd say so here and spoil the ruse? How about NO! 
Actually, I got nuthin' to hide. It ain't autobiographical in THIS way. Maybe it could be in that I'm probably more liberal (or liberated?) in my theology than some at WHC might appreciate. (The inclusivism-to-universalism thing, ya know) But nuthin' more than that. I'm definitely a trinitarian theist who believes in Jesus, the Christ! 
**********************
Corey: (emphasis mine)
Ok. Makes sense. But this guy is at least not being hypocritical to his worldview (If God is basically on the same par as Santa Claus, it really doesn't matter if you believe in him or not.) Neither was Patch Adams. I still think it would be hypocritical for me to affirm various tenets of Islam, for example. Hypocritical is too mild of a word, actually.
For the bolded part. What do you mean?
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 1:57:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/4/2005 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | | Okay, how is it "weird" to say that Jesus never was misrelated to ANYONE ELSE, either? I honestly don't see this equating of culture/humanness as necessarily wicked/evil as valid at all.
about the Keener commentary, I do find it a bit odd that Meph would be arguing against a minority view of the text simply because the view isn't the majority view.
Additionally, I think it's fair to assume that you're probably jumping to a conclusion about Christ based on your personally conditioned perception of the term, "dog," Meph, by injecting "racial slur" into the concept due to your own (understandable) self-consciousness. The preconception/chip-on-your-shoulder thing is quite understandable but really must color your perception of the narrative. I've known PLENTY of ladies, for instance, who took offense at Jesus referring to a female person in the Bible as "woman," all based on their modern-day kneejerk reaction to how they would feel if someone called them that.
I'll get back to you with some other commentaries on the passage as time permits, but I really don't see how Jesus was necessarily directly calling this lady a dog. He was just using a vivid and commonly understood illustration. If the woman had been offended by it, why did she respond as she did?
Also, when you say Jesus was a man of "unclean lips" how else do you expect me to take it? The direct biblical reference is a statement in Isaiah 6, in which an angel touches the prophet's lips with a burning coal from the altar, and the Lord says, "Your sin is purged." So when you say Jesus had unclean lips, I know of no other way to see the phrase than according to its biblical usage, which denotes religious uncleanness (sin).
By the way, I never used the "H" word, you and others did. (I did use the "B" word to describe what the implications of calling Jesus a sinner would be--which is the very definition of blasphemy--injurious speech against God).
If Jesus ever sinned against anyone, he was a sinner, just like us all, which I'm sure you know would have condemned us all.
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 11/4/2005 4:21:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2005 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | John: (emphasis mine)
I think it's fair to assume that you're probably jumping to a conclusion about Christ based on your personally conditioned perception of the term, "dog," Meph, by injecting "racial slur" into the concept due to your own (understandable) self-consciousness. The preconception/chip-on-your-shoulder thing is quite understandable but really must color your perception of the narrative. I've known PLENTY of ladies, for instance, who took offense at Jesus referring to a female person in the Bible as "woman," all based on their modern-day kneejerk reaction to how they would feel if someone called them that.
I take this as nothing less than an deep insult. I can't see any other way of taking it. We've had our spats and our spirited discussions which border (and tip) over ad hominems. But this... It's over a serious line for me. And that's sayin' a lot.
My conversation with you is terminated, until further notice. I'll have you on ignore for a minute... Be blessed, bro. Your brother in Christ, 
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 5:36:05 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/4/2005 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | Truly sorry you feel that way, Meph. But I can understand your reaction. I'm fine with leaving things alone too. It is not clear to me how anyone but God could know if what I said was meant by me as a "deep insult" to you (and it most definitely wasn't), but in any case I certainly was not trying to insult you at all, any more than you and Brandon were trying to insult me when you directly called me "weird." I simply was making an observation based on how I've seen others react to things in the past. In any case, if you don't have some kind of chip on your shoulder, why get all upset?
That said, I'm really not interested in talking further, either, with anyone who would state or imply that Jesus was a sinner. It will come as good news to many I'm sure, to know that I've just about lost interest in this board altogether. Perhaps it is for everyone's best that I bow out completely.
Post Edited (JEE) : 11/4/2005 6:06:46 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/4/2005 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey said: I get seriously ticked when people dismiss my view because of my race. Not to mention when people mind-read me falsely. This is just that. I think Meph is actually more restrained here than I would be in his place.
John replies: So it's okay for Meph or anyone else to get seriously ticked off at (and in fact to try to "mind read" ) ME by reading things into my statements that I definitely DIDN'T mean, but I can't even *suggest* something subjective inside Meph is perhaps going on that MIGHT be leading him to the conclusion he's taken?
By the way, I've NEVER once dismissed Meph's view one the basis of his race (actually, I'm absolutely certain he belongs to the human one),  but apparently you are free to judge my heart and say I have in fact dismissed his views on the basis of his race? Were I very easily offended, I would take that accusation as an insult. 
My objections to Meph's views have ALWAYS been based on my understanding of scripture and my understanding of Meph's posts, both of which could of course be faulty. The fact is my own extended family is "mixed race," and at the risk of sounding quite pretentious, I do happen to have lots of friends of many different ethnicities, not that that really makes any difference, but....
Anyway...I'm done.
By the way...my socioecononic standing is entirely dependent upon the provision of God--mainly my full-time secular job right now. But even if I ever do get involved again in full-time ministry, I don't see how that occupation would have any impact at all upon how I perceived the question of Christ's sinlessness, or of this made-up unbiblical new category of "societal" sin we now are supposedly involved in and that Christ supposedly supported/advanced/promoted.
Post Edited (JEE) : 11/4/2005 6:36:13 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/4/2005 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey, let me throw out some thoughts and tell me what you think. Paul said "all things are lawful, but all things do not profit. All things are lawful, but all things do not edify." Moreover, it is wrong, as John argued, to INTEND evil towards another. So we have, I think:
1) Some acts (like the fornication in the above mentioned Pauline context) are INTRINSICALLY wrong/evil.
2) Other acts are lawful (not intrinsically evil), so long as we are pursuing what is profitable and edifying to the best of our ability and knowledge.
3) ALL evil INTENTIONS are wrong.
4) Anything not of faith is sin (even if the act is NOT intrinsically wrong).
Can these 4 cases help us to adjudicate how to live in an evil world system? Sometimes (much of the time?) choosing a lesser of evils may be inevitable, ethically. But a lesser evil is, in a sense, more profitable. Then, as Meph says, we can do things that coincidentally aid evil, so long as our INTENT is good and are ACTIONS are truly diminishing evil. THEN, we are not complicit in systemic evil in any MORAL/ETHICAL way, regardless of whether we're complicit in an AMORAL way. For then, we are overcoming evil with good.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 111 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:37 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 |
|
|