 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Matrix Qs: An Ethical Plight of a Guardian | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/5/2005 2:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | Brandon,
It is obvious to me that you are taking what I said and putting it in the WORST possible light. I never once have said Meph couldn't think straight. Meph's obviously quite intelligent and is quite a deep thinker. I have acknowledged that before.
...Anyway, aren't we all prejudiced in our reading of scripture due to the cultural and personal "baggage" we bring to the text? Why is that so offensive a thought?
As to your shouting at me that I "have no idea" how much I've already been "guilty" of participation in oppression of others, you are right, I don't. And the Bible says "to him that KNOWS to do good and doesn't do it, to him it is sin." Not that I turn a dear ear to social injustice at all--because I certainly don't. But it appears to me that you have constructed a definition of sin that is so broad as to include basically everything we say or do as being somehow tainted by sin. And that is pure Augustinism/Manicheanism at its worst. God has clearly defined what sin is in the Bible, and it does not seen wise or warranted "to add to or take away" what God has called sin by adding some kind of impossible-to-avoid category of "societal" sin. To the extent that we are truly able to, I certainly agree that as sincere Christians must seek social justice for all, which is just another way of saying we should love our neighbor as ourself. (By the way, I don't buy Nike (or any other name brand) shoes; they're way too expensive for me to afford). 
That being said, your assumption that JESUS was somehow guilty of participation in this by, for instance, the fact that he used Roman roads that had been built by slaves assumes that slavery is biblically defined as sinful. The hard fact is, slavery is not condemned in scripture. To the contrary, slavery is endorsed in both the Old and New Testaments, is never denounced as such by God (though of course God expressed himself as definitely against mistreatment/abuse of slaves). In the Law of Moses, God gave specific laws regarding the proper way to own and manage slaves, and no NT writer ever argued for the abolition of slavery as an institution.
Having said that, I am definitely not saying that the slavery in the United States prior to the Civil War wasn't evil. I definitely believe it was very evil, and should never have existed as it did. But I cannot say slavery per se is evil based on the testimony of the scriptures. I would have to draw that conclusion from what I see to be biblically sound principles like "love your neighbor as yourself" to reason that it would be wrong for me to participate in slavery, but that would only carry moral weight with those who gave authority to the principle of benevolence in the first place. It would not be very persuasive to a person who didn't view Christ's commands as morally relevant to their life, and so I don't see how we can say the Romans who built the roads could be expected to obey the "love thy neighbor" principle, if they were pagans in the first place.
P.S.: I was serious when I said earlier I really am losing interest in this discussion board anyway. I have recently started a new job with longer hours and with my wife and family, I really can't participate as much as I used to any more. I also really don't find that I "fit in" to the discussions any more. I get the distinct feeling that my views are far too conservative for most here (even though I am an Open Theist). And really, I'm cool with that. I'm sure my absence will be a good thing for everyone. Peace out.
Post Edited (JEE) : 11/6/2005 12:38:12 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 11/5/2005 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, after reading some of this thread... and it being late (ie, don't have much time to post (that's becoming my new sad theme song))... here's my main question from the first page...
What makes the "evil system" actually "evil"??? I think you all have been saying basically, "the system looks evil, thus it's evil". But really... what makes it evil?
Just because our 21st century society says it's evil doesn't make it evil.
Just because sin is IN the world doesn't make the world per se evil.
Just because some elements have "oppressed" or harmed the physical doesn't make it evil (does it???).
Does being IN the system mean you ARE (intrinsically) part of the system?
Additional thought to think about: Socrates told his jury just before they sentenced him (an innocent man) to death that they could do no harm to him. What makes bad things happen to good people? My answer is, only *I* have the power to let evil affect to *ME* (if I have free will) or even hurt me (spiritually). So the question is, for those kids in the sweat shops, are they still being oppressed spiritually? (Really, honest question I'm bringing up here)
Still waiting for y'all to answer my question on the other thread... *hint hint*
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 11/5/2005 4:10:20 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/5/2005 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin,
The better question is "What is a sinful system?" which leads to the question: "What is SIN?"
Now...once we ask that question, things get very simple. If sin, bare bones, is anything that "misses the mark", the mark meaning God's holy intention for something as grounded in principles of God's Kingdom...then we see things VERY clearly. We are talking about a DEVIATION from a "Reign of God" standard. Taking "sin" to JUST be a moral alignment thing is, IMO, taking sin way too narrowly. It begins from and is most existentially concreted as a moral effect, don't get me wrong. But it's more than that. Fallenness is a product of sin. Sin's effects permeate ALL of reality. (Doc brings this out a whole bunch in SATPOE)
No systems of this world truly operate the way God wants them to, which is WHY they will eventually all be done away with. But if none of these systems are operating according to God's "Kingdom" standards, doesn't this mean that they are SINFUL??
Yes.
What does this mean? It means that's, just being a human being on this planet, it is IMPOSSIBLE that your life will be UNTOUCHED by sin in some form. We breathe it like air. To be sure, we can align our centers of willing to be more aligned with God, such that we properly align with God (and others, for they both go together) with respect to God being the center and goal. But even this takes place in a totally fallen world, when dealing with human institutions. And participating in a totally fallen world means that human existence WILL be impacted by sin. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.
And if someone benefits from or in some way abets from a sinful structure, this is NOT a neutral event. This is why I feel like "agonized participation" is the best thing we can say for God. Think about what it means for perfectly HOLY being to have to deal with PROFANE human institutions because God's beloved are so mired in sin. If this doesn't show the ever-flowing GRACE of God, I don't know what does! God doesn't like sin, meaning God doesn't like ANYTHING that deviates from his holy standard of loving relationality. Anything short doesn't "make the mark". Though God is gracious, we are STILL sinning like mad, even when we don't know it. Though God is working among us, God STILL has to work with "dirty tools" in order to get his Bride clean.
Jesus is the ONLY PERSON who ever existed about whom it can be said that they NEVER ONCE bolstered this fallen, sinful human civilization willingly. He never succumbed (?) to the pull of the fallen structures to internalize them into screwing up his perfect existential orientation to God and towards other people. It was always a means to an end. The Incarnation ITSELF was a means to an end. One that had tremendous cost for God in terms of God's holiness.
I'm convinced:
Being "i" the world but not "of" the world means people (individuals and groups) preserving and growing their heart orientation towards God and God's Kingdom at all times over and against the socializing and acculturalizing forces of the fallen world, including sinful human institutions
Paul was very realistic. We are GOING to be in the world, meaning we are GOING to participate in some form of falleness. For us to try to get away from corporate and systemic sin, we'd have to be taken OUT of the world! We can't do that while we are here. But this doesn't mean that we are completely OF the world because we are not. We have the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit, corporately and individually. Just like Jesus. This is why it is the law of the SPIRIT that overrules the law of SIN and death that works in one's members!
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 11/5/2005 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't know exactly what you are getting at here Corey, but one time I had a person tell me, "Brandon, NO JOB is dishonorable." So whether I work at McDonalds or at some job that may be questionable to some, either way work is an honorable thing. Now, this is not to say that some professions are not REALLY sinful i.e. prostitution. But even in some of these, one has to take into consideration as much of the information (factors) as to why someone might have to choose to do something like this, i.e. a woman has no education, no other way to work and pay the bills and has five little mouths to feed (at least we should try to work toward helping one remove themselves from such a life style EVENTUALLY, but THIS CAN'T ALWAYS BE DONE. We are in a war remember. Sometimes the Church is lazy. Sometimes she is self-righteous. Sometimes she doesn't have the resources. Whatever. Man its all crazy!). But **I personally** can allow for someone to do this line of work, because to some extent it is life-affirming. It's a necessary evil. It may be the LESSER of two evils. I think Meph Man is saying some of this with the hypocrisy examples above and the "agonized participant." But when I think of McDonalds, I don't have A CLUE as to how much sin is infected there. I mean, you might want to stop eating there if you knew the extent that McDonalds is participating in systemic evil. So REALLY what's the diff?
Think about this when people just get saved. We don't sit there and crack the whip, "You got to stop smoking, or sleeping around" or whatever. People need to "wake up" for themselves by the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is the same. It's just that we are soooo conditioned to thinking that this sin is somehow GREATER than other lesser "sins" such as smoking, swearing or eating too many of Aunt Esther's Gorilla cookies.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/5/2005 9:33:41 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/5/2005 10:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: ...my initial thought is that I've understood this passage to be about transitioning from a "move-away" to a "move-toward" mindset. Instead of merely trying to avoid sin, try to find the most beneficial course.
Jeff: I think we should probably define sin a more broadly than that. 'Cause James says that to know to do good but not do it is SIN. This is in complete agreement with Paul. Love seeks not it's own. It seeks those things that are profitable and edifying. But it can do so by coincidentally helping evil "systemically" via an act which is NOT intrinsically evil. And this is because an act of love which PROFITS is an act that results in a net LOSS to evil.
I would say that there are some ACTS which are intrinsically lawful that would be sinful to DO, on this interpretation. For example, I have a real problem believing that it would be right to help build Hitler's war machine even though the construction of a plane, per se, is not an intriniscally evil act. However, those planes were SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY designed to be used MILITARILY to defend RADICAL evil. When we perform an act that coincides SPECIFICALLY (not just by chance) with a SPECIFIC evil intent, the act is wrong. For in that case, it is hard to imagine how our action is truly PROFITABLE. Or so I understand it, anyway.
I think this is what John means by emphasizing INTENT. Am I right, John?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/6/2005 10:58:11 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/5/2005 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
BBBCanada said...
I don't know exactly what you are getting at here Corey .... We may be on different topics. I'm already pretty persuaded that to be a human in this world entails participation in the fallen structures. It seems inescapable. I think we agree here.
Now, there still are options about better or worse ways to relate to those structures. I'm asking if you'd agree that given the hand that Jesus was dealt, if he played the best game possible. In other words, isn't he the quintessential examplar of what it looks like to relate to AND IN the fallen world in godly way. Shouldn't we seek to pattern our interaction with these systems after his?
Now I'm sure the passage from earlier about his interaction with the Samaritan woman will come up; was that the best way to relate to her? Straight-up I'll tell I don't know quite what to make of it. For now I'll start with the assumption that he related with her in the best way AVAILABLE, given the actual state of affairs at that moment -- even though such language was likely offensive and hurtful.
Incidentally, I was reading through 1 John this morning. It struck me that John may have been writing to emphasize that Jesus was in fact GOD INCARNATE. How outrageous it was to think (if we use greek categories... I don't actually know who his audience was, I've heard he was responding to the gnostics) that the Ideal could become Real. The Real world was held to be a corruption, a falling short, of the Ideal. In other words, how could it be that the Ideal could/would become corrupted??!! Our conversation here may be similar... Maybe I'm just now coming to grips with what it means to be incarnational. Maybe I've been a quasi-gnostic...  Post Edited (Corey) : 11/5/2005 12:14:24 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/5/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
I'm asking if you'd agree that given the hand that Jesus was dealt, if he played the best game possible.
I think that would be "yes" given what we have talked about so much on these boards about over the last five years. While I think that Jesus heightened the tension of ethnic separation (therefore using the sinful structures of this world), I don't think that Jesus was PERSONALLY DEMEANING TO her. Either way, he used the system "given his hand." So, yeah...
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 11/5/2005 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | But Meph, just because there is sin IN the system, does that make the system itself SIN? (Notice I didn't say "sinful")
Of course we all would agree that the system itself can NEVER become SIN. Nor is it the case that if sin is within the system that the whole system is wasted. If that were the case, then God (being wholy good) could have NEVER come into the world. If association with sin turns good into evil, then from that, God would have been affected. But I understand clearly that you're not saying that God was affected.
I agree that within Reality, "Sin's effects permeate ALL of reality." But not all reality becomes sin. Nor is "working the system" that contains sin necessarily is a sin. Right?
I don't think you're right here: "But if none of these systems are operating according to God's "Kingdom" standards, doesn't this mean that they are SINFUL??
Yes." (I need more convincing)
You're saying that if a system is missing the mark then it's sinful. But wholesale? ... unless you mean the system CONTAINS sin. My argument is that there is no system (that I can think of) that is sin wholesale. It's the agents in that system that may be sinful, but not the system itself. You can't make a system good OR bad; it's neither good nor bad...only what's in it and the affects due to the agents within it.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 11/5/2005 4:46:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/6/2005 1:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, folks. I was lying in bed a while ago, telling myself I should not go upstairs and get on the internet, that I needed to get to sleep, but I felt I needed to come back here to say to Meph and everyone else here that I am genuinely sorry Meph was insulted by my words yesterday. I certainly did not mean them as an insult, though upon further reflection, I can see how they could be taken as an insult. Sorry Meph. I also am sorry I have allowed others here to push my buttons, too.
Sincere Blessings to Meph, Corey, Brandon, and everyone else.
Bye folks,
John
Post Edited (JEE) : 11/6/2005 12:47:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/6/2005 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh yeah, and by the way...I checked SEVERAL different evangelical commentaries last night, and only one out of the 10+ I didn't make basically the same point* Dr. Keener makes in the IVP Bible Background Commentary, so I'm at a loss to see how this is "a minority view." ( * The view that Jesus was NOT being insulting or demeaning to the Syrophoenician woman, was not using "a racial slur," but was illustrating a point by saying children have first dibs on dinner before any puppies in the house may).
See ya,
John
Post Edited (JEE) : 11/6/2005 1:08:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 11/7/2005 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't think a system can be "moral" or "immoral". Only the agents running it behave in a moral or an immoral manner. For example, let's look at the church as a "system". Now without any agents running it, it does neither good nor bad. It's just there on paper. If you have a couple of moral agents and a couple of immoral agents in it, then the system, if we were to anthropomorphize it, would "behave" in a moral manner in some respects due to the moral agents, and it would "behave" in an immoral manner in other respects due to the immoral agents.
Let's look at a more sensitive issue: slavery. It could be good (in part or whole) and it could be bad (in part or whole). It depends on the agents.
If you have a great, moral master, those who are slaves do not mind and may even enjoy working for the master. How is that possible? Job security, family security, you all work as a team, the master cares for those who are his slaves and takes care of them as if they are his own children and when he gets old, the slaves take care of the good master. The master teaches love, respect, and perhaps because of him, all his slaves come to know Christ.
If you have a horrible, immoral master, those who are slaves fear him, hate him, look for ways to escape, and abandon him when he gets old, if they can. The master may have been a nominal "Christian", but because of his example, the slaves have no desire to come to know Christ.
But... hmm... now I'm thinking of certain religions, and are they inherently evil. Let me get back to you about that. Perhaps if we develop this further, we may see that perhaps a system CAN be evil depending on where the system comes from.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted Yesterday 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
I don't think a system can be "moral" or "immoral". Only the agents running it behave in a moral or an immoral manner. Yeah, I agree with you. We talked about this a long time ago (me and others). "Systems" are just abstractions of common actions/events/processes. They aren't "real". And "systems" as abstractions can only be defined after common actions/events/processes etc. are observed and grouped, as a mental exercise.
The scripture that informs me are Ezekial 18 and Paul's teaching on eating meat sacrificed to idols.
If there is any specific conviction of sin, "you sinned in this instance", THAT is from the Holy Spirit.
If there is any general, vague, blanket condemnation, "you're a sinner because you were born", "you're a sinner because you participate within 'systemic evil'", THOSE are not the convictions of the Holy Spirit.
good day
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 11/8/2005 9:09:19 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted Today 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
If there is any general, vague, blanket condemnation, "you're a sinner because you were born", "you're a sinner because you participate within 'systemic evil'", THOSE are not the convictions of the Holy Spirit.
I agree, house cats are not guilty by association.
It’s by each cats volitional choice to either be led by the Spirit or to consciously and actively participate within 'systemic evil' Prozac producing household structures. 
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 11/9/2005 11:28:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted Today 7:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | Well, I was thinking about what you were saying Corey, about "if a system relies on or entails some immoral practice in order for the system to function, doesn't it follow that the system is therefore an immoral system? "
The first question I think we'd have to answer would be: Would the existence of the system rise and fall on that particular immoral practice? That is, if that "immoral practice" were not practiced but the rest of the stuff of the system was practiced, would that system become non-functionable?
Say for example, if a system were to completely collapse because of the absence of the "immoral practices", could the "immoral practices" be adjusted into "moral practices"? ....
First, is it even possible to adjust the practice from something immoral to something moral?
Second, would that too cause the system to collapse?
So from all these questions I have here, here's the thing: if the system does not necessarily depend on the "immoral practices" and those practices could either be abandoned, then the system is still not inherently evil. If the "immoral practices" can't be abandoned, but could be modified into "moral practices", then again it's not inherently evil.
However, if the system necessarily and specifically depends on "immoral practices" for its existence, then yes, it would probably be an immoral system.
But!..... let's rock the boat a bit here... (since we don't have Meph to play devil's advocate, grr)
Truthfully, I'm thinking that "child labor" per se may not be inherently evil. In fact, do we have child labor? Absolutely! They have to go to school, they have homework. If they decide to buck the system, there are consequences (being sent to an alternative school, becoming homeless if they don't work (unless they get extremely lucky and depend on someone who will support them)).
What is it that makes "child labor" even in the sweat shops "evil"?
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 11/9/2005 7:00:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 111 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:49 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 |
|
|