Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Question...another one...

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/30/2007 8:25 PM (GMT -6)

I'm wondering this.

Is the desire for retaliation sinful?

Asked another way...

Is the desire for retaliation something that ever belongs in the heart of any GENUINE Kingdom activity?

If so, I'd like to be shown how the desire for retaliation can be compossible with Jesus' perfectly self-giving activity as displayed by the Cross.

If not, then there's another question...

If we look at any given personal relationship activity...and we can honestly boil things down to originating in (or being continually sustained by) the desire for retaliation in any way...then would a person be within their reasonable rights to say that it wasn't genuine Kingdom activity?

If there is any so-called "Christian" activity that has any basis in a desire to retaliate...then...?

Wife's callin'. Gotta go.

I love y'all. biggrin

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be One, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be One as we are One— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete UNIty. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to SONship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 5/31/2007 6:13 PM (GMT -6)

LOVE YOU TOO, BRO.

Here's where I'm at. Because of how previous discussions have affected my thinking on the matter, I feel more comfortable talking about consequences than retaliation. I would say that God "requires" consequences of people (which is just to say that there will be accountability) for misrelating if they know they are motivated by consequences.

It has everything to do with motivation and nothing else. So, the only reason why I think we should agree that consequences (fines, spankings, time-outs, groundings, etc.) are appropriate is if we think they really motivate people to better relating. Note I say better, and not right. I think misrelating can be bad in degrees. Just as divorce is a lesser evil than living together in animosity (for God has called us unto peace), so too, being motivated by consequences (vs. motivated by love) is a lesser evil than certain misrelations that are avoided thereby.

Yes, being motivated by consequences ONLY is, itself, a misrelation. Just not necessarily the worse one. Many things are about degree, to my mind.

So should I desire to dole out consequences for misrelation? Absolutely not. Vengeance is the Lord's. Should I desire that the "authorities" dole out consequences for misrelation? Only to the extent that I'm convinced that 1) God has delegated the right to motivate by consequences to the "authorities" and 2) the degree of senseless suffering will be diminished thereby. Because it's ALL about motivation. Nothing else.

I don't know how to make sense of accountability in terms of love in any other way.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/31/2007 7:14:03 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 5/31/2007 9:53 PM (GMT -6)

My answer is no, retaliation is sin and the desire to sin is something that should be minimized as we grow. If love is the movement toward happiness or "sentient satisfaction," then anything goes that moves (or attempts to move) to that goal. If, on the other hand, love is putting others ahead of self, then an action that imposes my lordship over others is unloving even if that action moves (or intends to move) to "a better world."

When these fundamental, definitional questions are asked, we truly are faced with a choice between "benevolent lordship" and "irresponsible servanthood." To put it in stark terms, the one who chooses to be a benevolent lord puts himself in the place of God. The servant who has faith trusts that God is responsible for the outcomes.

I respect those who have different views. I know it sounds extreme and maybe uncharitable. I wish I could express it in softer language.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/1/2007 5:10 AM (GMT -6)

No offence taken here, Zach. I'm not a benevolent lord nor am I persuaded that our criminal "justice" system significantly diminishes senseless suffering (and I'm sure it doesn't in many specific cases). The more pertinent question is how does accountability to God, in the form of consequences, fit in with love. If I remember correctly, you do believe that God will hold covenanters responsible. You base this on their consent. But I don't think they want the consequences (I know I don't). They just consent to the idea that accountability is rational. So how do we make sense of those consequences in terms of love apart from the motivational effect they have?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/1/2007 5:31:59 AM (GMT-5)

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:56 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual