 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/30/2005 9:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | Thinking...
For everyone who's seen the Matrix.
What would you make of someone who came to understand the Matrix as a full-fledged falsehood...but actively chose to remain in the Matrix, with the knowledge of it being false?
What if the person used the Matrix as a "noble lie" to give some of the people INSIDE the Matrix a better life than they probably ever could have had OUTSIDE the Matrix? Like Morpheous said, some people have been in the Matrix so long or are so existentially attached to it, it would be damaging to take them out. It's just better to leave them in.
What if, at at the same time, this person left a "back door" open for those strong enough to handle the harsh truth of reality and what the Matrix is? What if they gave good clues about how to get "red pills" on the side?
Imagine if someone's with Neo's powers and knowledge of the truth who, of their own free will and choice, somehow planted themselves back in the power plant to stay in the Matrix and do what's said above. He wouldn't be a full "freedom fighter", but he'd not just be another sleeping, oblivious believer in the Matrix.
---------------------------------------
1. Would this be seen as a sacrifice of integrity?
2. Would this person be "selling out" by allowing people to be happy in the Matrix?
3. Would this person be wrong in strengthening people's belief in the Matrix? Why or why not?
4. Would the "Agents" hate on this person, if this person really HELPED to promote the lie of the Matrix, even though he occasionally "freed" some people? Would they try to get rid of him? Why or why not?
5. Is this person a hero, villian, both, or neither?
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 10/30/2005 11:22 PM (GMT -6) | | This is what's spurned my ideas. Been lookin at the site for a coupla days. Forgot how cool it was. Check out the "Comics" and "Philosophy" sections.
whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/
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 10/31/2005 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Ay, yo. I know this sounds lofty or fantastical, but I love ethical "dilemmas". I think this provides a pretty cool one. Besides, some would say this could actually have some practical ramifications. Just gimme your 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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/31/2005 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, dude.
Corey:
I'll bite, but for lack of time, I'll be brief: this person should be considered a co-conspirator, a quasi-agent.
A "quasi-agent." Interesting. So, the human beings would call this person a traitor or something like that? But what about Zion's "rule"? They would only get people of a certain age and type because of what I mentioned earlier. In other words, the freedom fighters themselves wouldn't just get EVERY human they saw out. "The mind has a hard time letting go" Morpheus said. This caused more harm than good. Accordingly, they would purposefully leave some people in the Matrix. What would be wrong with taking the NEXT step ie helping those poor humans ENJOY the Matrix as much as they could?
Now, it could be argued that there would come a time when the person would HAVE to make a concrete choice either for or against the Matrix. For example, if Neo had devised a way to completely DESTROY the Machine Race...and that way entailed the ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL aid of the "co-conspirator". This person's decision would SQUARELY place them either on the Agents' side or the Humans'. But barring that kind of a situation, would the person be wrong in "helping" the Matrix by providing as good an existence as one could for those "hardwired" into the Matrix?
Real life. Some people may be so SET in their worldview ways, that to try to extract them would be, at best, a waste of time...and at worst, a psychological malady waiting to happen. If this is genuinely judged to be the case, would a person be wrong in working WITHIN that person's framework to give them as much "freedom" as possible? Example. My 80 something year old grandmother. I love her to death, but she is a VERY SOLID theological determinist who gets mad encouragment from it. For me to even TRY to get her to consider open theism would be a lost cause, in my view. What I can do is work within her framework when I pray with her. I can try to get her to see that theological determinism doesn't NECESSITATE a "que cera cera" view of the world. That God can use her actions as proximate means to divine ends (Not that I'd say it in this language, mind you.) such that "trusting God" doesn't fall into an implicit fatalism. See what I mean?
[Note: If the Calvinistic "blueprint worldview" is as counterproductive as many say that it is (Greg calls it straight up demonic. No joke!), couldn't it be likened unto the Matrix in some way??]
[Note 2: I suppose this line of thought could be arguing MANY different things at the same time, n'est pas?] Get to the other questions as you have time. I think this WILL be fun! 
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) : 10/31/2005 8:56:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/31/2005 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Wait! Brand NEW thought.
What if the this person came to see a startling truth: The Matrix was, in some sense, a NECESSARY evil now!
Imagine the destruction of the Machine race such that EVERY human being were automatically released from the Matrix. Could the relatively few people of Zion REALLY deal with all those people? We are talking BILLIONS of people in those womb-like things. Getting 10 or 20 people out a day is one thing. Collasping the whole thing at once is entirely different.
For those people who didn't immediately go crazy upon learning to the truth, you'd have a whole WORLD of people to reorient to reality. Remember all the stuff they did with Neo...and he was supposed a STRONG one. Rebuilding muscles. Getting people to "really" use their eyes and such. Not to mention reorientation to the Zion society. Can you imagine doing that for the whole human race at one time?? Not enough help. Not enough food. It would be impossible! If anything, you'd have to use the Matrix itself as a "transitional" tool to help people adjust to the harshness of the outside world!
What if the person, understanding this reality, decided NOT to destroy the Matrix after all? What if the person wanted COHABITATION...where people could stay in the Matrix if they wanted to, and the Machines would let people leave if they wanted to? (Which is pretty much what happened at the end of the Matrix trilogy!) Hmmm...
VEEEERY interesting.
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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/31/2005 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Oddly enough, practical considerations tend to make me limit myself to issues like "Prayer changes things," and "We can make a difference," rather than a full-blown discussion of the Open View with most people. In my experience, people are much more cool with "Prayer changes things," and "We have real choices to make" than they are with even suggesting that God's knowledge of the future may include some genuine (not foreknown as definite) "ifs" in the world. With such folks, I tend to not even bring up the Open View if it upsets them too much. For instance, my senior pastor, gets really upset with me if I even try to bring up the Open View, so I generally just keep things on things we do agree on, which is almost everything else theologically. Funny thing is, he's one of the most adamant people I've ever known about our responsibility and ability to make a difference in our time.
I haven't had too much interaction with Calvinists (except online), but with them I also don't find a "full frontal assault" type approach really ever does much except get them riled.
John
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/31/2005 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
Oddly enough, practical considerations tend to make me limit myself to issues like "Prayer changes things," and "We can make a difference," rather than a full-blown discussion of the Open View with most people. In my experience, people are much more cool with "Prayer changes things," and "We have real choices to make" than they are with even suggesting that God's knowledge of the future may include some genuine (not foreknown as definite) "ifs" in the world.
Right! I think the reason why it's easier to do it that way is because it naturally goes with our more "hardcore common-sense notions" about things. This is hard to deny from an existential perspective. However, start talking about the implications of a WORLDVIEW where prayer really DOES change things and where we really DO make a difference in the shape of reality's outcome...and watch the fur fly! Ah, the human capacity for holding mutually exclusive ideas in one's head at the same time. Gotta love it.
But it gets even HARDER if people are emotionally or psychologically dependent on a certain worldview. (I could be dead wrong, but I think this may be true in Dr. Piper's case.) Now, things really get deep. For my grandmother to believe in gratuitous evil would be utterly devastating for her. Of this, I am very sure. She's gone through a lot of pain in her life. And it's the belief that God orchestrated it all FOR HER GOOD that helped her through it all. I almost feel it would be heartless of me to even think about trying to take that away from her...even for consistency's sake. (See...I'm NOT a cold, hard-a$$ machineman of a theologian, now am I?? )
But doesn't this type of dilemma exist on all kinds of fronts?
*****************
JEE:
I haven't had too much interaction with Calvinists (except online), but with them I also don't find a "full frontal assault" type approach really ever does much except get them riled.
You said it. John Piper preached one day and used an example about this couple that wrote to him. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the sermon. Their 6 year old daughter had been brutally raped and given a veneral disease from it. And do you know what this couple said?? Paraphrasing..
Dr. Piper, your biblical preaching has helped us so much during this time. If we didn't hold to the sovereignty of God in all things, we don't know what we'd do. We'd probably go crazy
Now, how do you think THOSE people would appreciate a "frontal assault" about open view theism...even if it was well beyond the immediacy of the event? Yep...
Bottom line: Some people just NEED this view of God to keep living their lives. Take it away and they have little else. Would a person be wrong for letting them bask in this...and use it as a form of "noble lie"?
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 11/1/2005 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok...I don't JUST want this to be about the "Calvinism" thing. I want this to be broader than that.
For example...
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 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.
Two different vantagepoints. With the same ultimate reasoning behind them.
Interesting how this can be taken, huh?
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 11/1/2005 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
Meph Man said...
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 was reading Kierkegaard's, "Under The Spell of Good Intentions." I think Christ would actually PREFER we say a flat out "NO" then to say, "Yes" and not follow Him. Goes to show not only our MESSED up understanding of evangelism (let's get people to make decisions, take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to spread the Gospel, etc), but also our own evil intentions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/1/2005 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
I was reading Kierkegaard's, "Under The Spell of Good Intentions." I think Christ would actually PREFER we say a flat out "NO" then to say, "Yes" and not follow Him. Goes to show not only our MESSED up understanding of evangelism (let's get people to make decisions, take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to spread the Gospel, etc), but also our own evil intentions.
I hear that.
******************************
Corey...where you at?
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 11/1/2005 9:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph Man, what do you say to the idea that The Matrix and real life cannot be compared like you have, say for example, with the Muslim religion. They say that IF The Matrix is a lie then one doesn't know it. Or that The Matrix is another way of seeing life.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/1/2005 8:07:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/2/2005 5:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
Remember the traitor guy from the first movie that made a deal to be placed back in the Matrix? He just couldn't deal with reality. He requested that his mind be completely wiped of any knowledge of the real world; ignorance is bliss. He didn't want to go back in with some special powers to shape things, to make life easier for himself or others. At least in his mind, this middle ground existence you've described would be kind of the worst of both worlds.
Yep. He would be the inauthentic person, existentially speaking. He wanted to go back to being TOLD what reality was and being oblivious...instead of KNOWING the "absurdity" and authentically CHOOSING his way of how he wanted to relate to the world. I would have had much more respect for him if he wanted to retain his memory of his choices and OWNED that person of himself.
**********************************
Corey:
We should also note the attitude that the real-world folk had to those they killed in the Matrix (like cops, etc)... I remember a line to the effect, "They were already dead." They considered the Matrix existence to be a sort of living death. Wouldn't it follow: if it doesn't really matter that we kill these people, likewise it doesn't really matter if we help these people. In this sense, the Matrix is a case-study in atheistic existentialism.
Actually, I feel like this is more of a study on the "us/them" Manichean mentality many conservative Christians can have. Particularly with the "warfare" mentality. Remember the scene where Morpheus and Neo are in the program where Neo is introduced to the "girl in red"? Morpheus basically describes the situation as being like this.
The system of the Matrix is our enemy. But some people are so hopelessly linked and dependent on the Matrix that they will fight to keep it in existence, even subconsciously. And Agents can use that to their advantage to pop up anywhere, anywhen.
In other words, to not be free is implicitly to be on the enemy's side. To me this fit HAND-IN-GLOVE to the whole "they are dead in sin while WE are the free and regenerated" concept. Us/them. And for the SAME REASON, it seems incomprehensible to some conservative Christians to help non-Christians just have a better NON-CHRISTIAN existence! They think...
"If I'm not actively trying to free this person from their spiritual blindness (and give them Jesus), what gain is just making their futile lives "better" in a straight up humanly sense?"
This is why, I believe, it's so hard to get conservative Christians to do any purely humanitarian work that is devoid of any opportunity to explicitly speak about Jesus or the Gospel. It's the state of their eternal souls that matter...NOT their earthly lives, right?
Yeah...
So, what would it look like for Christians to help people grow in the non-Christian existences in ways that are life-affirming, but not explicitly Christian? I'd say it would look like a person whose been freed from the Matrix who helps a person expand their sense of freedom within their Matrix context.
****************************************
Corey: (emphasis mine)
As for analogies back to this world, I have a harder time doing that because the dissimilarities are significant. The most obvious is that there is no Absolute (in SK terms) in that world. In this world, each life has value by virtue of God. God gives shape to how we are to relate to each other and to him. Jesus Christ is the one we should model ourselves after.... I don't see him taking a sort of laissez faire approach to those in the Matrix (all of us). He was bold in proclaiming the Kingdom of God (the real world!) and our need to deal with that. "Those that have ears to hear..." etc. Interesting that he didn't just force us out of the Matrix en masse, we have to first make that movement of faith. But I also don't see that he did anything to further perpetuate the Lie (the kingdom of darkness.)
Actually, I don't think the bolded part is that true. Think "complicity" (Yep, that word again!)
Back to the Matrix. The freedom fighters would always try to keep a "low profile" as much as possible and would only reveal themselves when it was absolutely necessary. Why? Because they new that if they revealed themselves too much, Agents would be on their way in a heartbeat. It was a SUBVERSIVE movement.
I believe it was the same way with Jesus. Jesus didn't openly contradict ALL the "empowered lies" of his day. Jesus benefited from the Roman system. Jesus benefited from being a male Jew (as opposed to a woman Gentile or something). Insofar as he did these things, he BENEFITED from sinful structures. However, he worked within them to ultimately destroy them.
[Involved Digression: When Modes and I were talking about racism terminology with this theologian person, and we got to the idea of racism as a SYSTEM that could be participated in unwillingly and unknowingly, we brought this type of stuff up. That Jesus, being a MALE JEW where he was, had UNEARNED benefits from a constellation of sin-filled institutional systems that he had no hand in creating. For example, there were just some things he could do because he was a male that women couldn't do, just because they were women. This sexist matrix is NOT "kingdom." But Jesus benefited from it nonetheless and this is considered participation, even though he didn't actively support it and worked against it in his ministry, to some extent. It took this theologian some TIIIIIME to let this idea filter through, because they couldn't get down with the idea that Jesus participated in ANY kind of sin, corporate, systemic, or otherwise. Came to find out that this person was thoroughly in the hyper-Wesleyan view of sin that only dealt with intention and knowledge. Sin was primarily the known, willed transgression of God's moral standard, not unwilled, unknown participation in sinful structures. There is MUCH to be said about this with respect to an appropriate, helpful harmartiology that is conducive to really dealing with the robust nature of sin and it's relationship to SYSTEMIC ills like racism, sexism, classism, etc. But that's for another time]
His ministry came to the point of climax where it was no longer about being more subversive, but OPENLY challenging the status quo. Remember, it was the ROMANS who killed Jesus. He brought attention to himself strong and it got him killed. Just like if Trinity or Neo were to start doing all kinds of hardcore Matrix-defying activity in broad daylight. Agents would be there QUICK to shut that down. We need to remember that Jesus lived 30 YEARS before his 3 year prophetic ministry. Supposedly, he was "sinless" all that time. How could someone so embodying the Kingdom spend SO MUCH TIME "under the radar" as it were? If living the Kingdom is pretty much a death sentence with respect to the world, how do we explain this? Could it be that living a God-honoring life didn't necessarily mean openly challenging EVERY facet of a demonically-influenced culture in such a dramatic way? Can we imagine during that time that Jesus promoted human well being in less provocative ways? Could this be how Jesus grew in stature with God and men? Just think about it.
*****************************
Corey:
Just recollecting a bit more... remember how "whole crops [of humans] were lost" when the machines tried to make a utopian exisitance for them? How does that play out with the questions you're raising? False utopia isn't actually better!
I liked the depth of that part. I would have loved to see what they meant by a "perfect world where everyone would be happy." Smith surmised that because human beings make their life out of misery and suffering, that their "primitive cortex" couldn't handle the idea of being totally happy. He was half-right. Consciousness has the innate nature of wanting to become and be ACTIVE in their becoming. Their is an inherent desire for AGENCY in that becoming. If a "perfect world" consisted of the utter reduction of this sense of agency, then of course there would be problems. A "utopia" that has NO room for agency and becoming will be outgrown, just by the nature of what it means to be free agents. No group of free, morally autonomous people would thrive in a situation where the ability to do, learn (and fail) were absolutely removed.
At any rate, I don't see what this would have to deal with the idea of someone supporting the Matrix. One would not be calling it a utopia by acknowledging the reality that some people NEED it and will only "thrive" to some extent within it...and working within that idea.
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 11/2/2005 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
But I do have a hard time swallowing the idea that Jesus further perpetuated the kingdom of darkness. Don't preach that!  Maybe I should use the word 'advanced' rather than 'perpetuated'. Wouldn't you agree that Jesus opposed the kingdom of darkess rather than advanced it? Of course you would (or I've got to pull out the "H" word!) Yes, he worked within it and used it together for good, but that's different than advancing it per se. <!-- Edit --> Well Corey, we would have to go back to the thread on "Complicity." But Jesus was complicit with the sinful structures of his day. I put this up on the Christian and Riches thread as well as the Carlie thread. I'll put it up again. I think the word "perpetuate" is a legitimate use.
Secondly, the incarnation means that Jesus’ social and economic identity was not an accident. We know that Jesus was a “tekton” a Greek word meaning, mason, carpenter, cartwright and joiner, all rolled into one. It is very probable that Jesus was involved in the massive construction that went on in nearby Sepphorus a city that was destroyed as a result of a rebellion occasioned by Herod’s death. This city, rebuilt by his son , Herod Antipas, was under Roman rule during Jesus lifetime. If this is correct, then Jesus would have worked and prospered here. This would have implicated him directly in the political workings of the Herodian dynasty! Even so, being from Nazareth meant that Jesus was located and therefore connected to towns that were “Greek-speaking and cosmopolitan, located on busy trade routes connected to Roman administrative centers.”
You see where I’m going with this don’t you? 
If the incarnation tells us anything, it tells us that Jesus’ chosen place in his society as a tradesman reflects a certain goodness on property, on creative producing work and on the sort of person that goes with it. It also means that Jesus worked at a productive trade within the economic system of Israel in the Roman Empire. Whether one accepts Jesus’ involvement in the rebuilding of Sepphorus or not, what all this means is that Jesus identity was “deeply interwoven with the political and economic system of Rome.”
Now what I say here, will fly somewhat in the face of what Greg writes about concerning our “interconnectedness.”
Sider believes there is no distinguishing between “personal evil” and “structural evil.” We are morally responsible not only for our own actions but for our involvement in world systems and for the moral actions of countless others. So if we, for example, buy stock or buy Nike shoes made in sweatshops or China, etc, no matter how good your personal life may be one is implicated in the moral evil that benefits them. YOU ARE GUILTY BEFORE GOD!!
Think about it. One would not only be working in fallen systems but working within that system would be SINFUL. This would cast a guilty verdict over ‘bout…EVERYONE! Unless we live on some desert island somewhere in the middle of the Pacific, I think it is safe to assume that we all, to one degree or another benefit from sinful systems without trying to change them.
Digression: Think “Reparations” and our participation in “structures.”
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.”
Thank you Greg.
The greater our involvement, the greater the guilt. And you’ve got to know that once we start uncovering “structural evils,” that we “profit” from, there is then, no end in sight. Any attempt at participation in the world would makes futile any integrity we would begin with. Either we must be involved in the world without integrity and live in a state of perpetual guilt or we must escape from the fallen system itself as completely as we can. Thus, the principle given by Sider and others, (thinking Anabaptists here, Ahem…) as a means of transforming society is really a moral prohibition against working within the fallen world—separatism. It requires significant withdrawal from the very system it wishes to reform.
“Guilt by implication” is totally futile.
Now compare this to the life and identity of Jesus Christ. Christ was not only subjected to the disadvantages that come with being a Jew, but he clearly profited from the Roman economic system. He might have benefited from the stability of peace, legal order, good road systems, stimulated cash flows and building projects. But the “structural evil” also included totalitarian dictatorship, taxation, gratuitous military conquest, slave labor, expedient use of genocide, etc. Yet because Jesus worked within the system, it was simply impossible that he did not benefit (perhaps greatly) from structural evils. And as far as we know, he did nothing directly to change them (though his teaching and way of life threaten those structures far beyond what the Zealots could accomplish). As a matter of fact this outraged the “puritanicals” who thought Christ was careless ‘bout his contacts with Roman soldiers and tax-collectors—those who typfied cultural godlessness. What did Christ do? He condemned them for their lack of grace toward the human condition. This is why “guilt by implication” is so relentless, rigid and unforgiving. Jesus wouldn’t even pass the test. He too, is sinful and guilty of involvement in the world. We need to think twice about our work and protests in the world in ways that are far less limited in terms of what Christians may or may not engage in vocationally.
Yes there are vocations that are clearly wrong. I’m not talking about these. I’m talking ‘bout “guilty by implication” and our involvement and profit from fallen systems. This cannot be our sole criteria or condition for judging our noninvolvement.
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 12:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Don't buy into it, Corey.
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.
John
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 11/3/2005 12:26:20 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/3/2005 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's where I'm at after taking a night to sleep on it: 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 and through scripture. I know you guys are into SK, which makes this all the more incomprehensible to me. You know 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. I'll have to go back back and read those threads. I'll assume (in love) I'm just missing something here.
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" ).
Kinda pissed,
CoreyPost Edited (Corey) : 11/3/2005 7:10:12 AM (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 6:48 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 |
|
|