 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Is Doc now opposed to police? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/7/2007 9:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | Greg's statement...
I’ve come to see the taking of human life as demonically arrogant – demonic, because it expresses hopelessness in another, which is the opposite of love (I Cor. 13:7), and arrogant, because only the giver of life can justifiably take it.
One: It doesn't make any sense to say that purposefully taking human life is essentially demonic, when God takes human life for what some may think were questionable reasons (Ananias and Sapphira, 42 children mauled by 2 she-bears). Did God have "hopelessness" for Ananias and Sapphira? Moreover, would the death have even HAPPENED if it weren't PRONOUNCED UPON THEM by Peter, of all people? Hmmm. This leads to the next thought...
Tom: Right. If love never takes life because love always sees hope in some situation, then why would God ever take a life? But God DOES take life. Why? Because in his view that was the best, most loving thing to do—the KINGDOM thing to do. And where does Greg get the idea that there can never been IN THIS LIFE situations that are irredeemable IN THIS LIFE? Why think that?
OF COURSE there can be and are IN THIS LIFE hopeless situations. I recall one such situation including the entire human race except for Noah and his family (Gen. 6).
Now, maybe Greg would say only God can ever know enough to judge when taking life (like Ananias) is the thing to do. But that only disproves the contention that there’s always hope in this life for any conceivable situation. And it ignores the obvious point that God executes his will in such instances through human instruments who discern God’s will and make choices.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/7/2007 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/7/2007 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: When I said intelligent people can disagree, I was referring to the Luke 22 passage. Maybe biblical scholars can believe Jesus said, "They is enough" or that Luke (or later copyists) were careless enough to put those words in Jesus' mouth. And maybe scholars can honestly believe Luke has Jesus commanding the disciples to use carry literal swords despite the fact that Jesus immediately ends the conversation, ignores the disciples' question about their use, and Jesus says, 'No more of this.' These textual issues still have 'a shadow of a doubt.'
Jeff: Where does Jesus say "No more of this." What were the disciples' questions about their use? Jesus didn't just talk about swords. He talked about other provisions. So what do they mean by the parabolic interpretation? It's easier, to my mind, to see the whole thing in context. Christ says "FOR" to introduce his explanation. And what is his explanation? That he is about to be reckoned with transgressors.
I hear Christ saying, "Guys, heretofore we have been in phase 1 of my coming. You had all your needs met during this time. But I'm fixing to check out of phase 1. Things are going to be different. Prepare yourselves accordingly." If Christ did mean for them to literally provide themselves with a sword, I assume from what we know that he meant it to be used defensively only. But at bare minimum, those comments are signaling a change that is about to take place after he is gone--one that entails greater challenges.
Zach: But I think the teaching (central to the Church until Constantine) that the Christian refuses the sword and takes up the cross in the manner of Jesus, is so fundamental as to be definitional. Absolute pacifism (in the Christian sense) is clear in the New Testament.
Jeff: We've been debating this for a while. The only verse you have offered that can be taken, with any degree of plausibility, to mean absolute pacifism is that one sentence in the Sermon. Yet that sentence is under the topical heading of retaliation. So I don't see how pacifism is clear at all there. Retaliation is vengeance. All force is not vengeance. Some of it is preventative.
Zach: It is even clearer in the early Church. I'm not going to make any judgments about anyone's salvation, but those Christians who practice violence (even with the best of intentions) would be subjected to church discipline in the early Church.
Jeff: Why would we care what the early church thought if we don't care what Paul and Peter wrote? The latter, at least, were supposedly chosen by Christ and approved by signs and wonders. And didn't the early church claim to be interpreting them, anyway? If your repeated reminder that Jesus is lord--so we can trump Paul and Peter with our interpretations of Jesus--is valid, how much less should I care what the early church thought. Besides, much of what the Roman military about was pure unadulterated conquering--totally unlike the police work they did in Palestine. So I would need more details about the early church view to even know what it was, exactly.
Zach: Maybe the proximity between Jesus' reference to his death and his command to take up the cross is just a coincidence.
Jeff: I've never said it was. I've only contended that being persecuted to death need not have anything to do with pacifism. Nor have I ever argued that Christians should use force against the State. Nor have I ever argued that Christians ought to participate in the State. I've only argued that I don't see how one can prove that it is inherently wrong to participate in the State in some police power role. That is not to say that such roles are not fraught with problems relating to justice.
Zach: Certainly, we are to be faithful to love, forgive, serve, and submit to persistent and continuing sinners.
Jeff: Where did Jesus say to submit to sinners? Love sinners? Absolutely. The whole law is summed up in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This means, to my mind, that we submit to other humans precisely when we believe submission serves that interest in our neighbor that we would like served for us if the tables were turned. But I will not submit to anyone if either 1) I think it would be bad for me, as a human in a similar position, to be submitted to thus, or 2) it requires me to not love another as I believe I'm required to (i.e., some duties trump others depending on circumstances, like the ox and the Sabbath). This is the golden rule.
To my mind, there is no golden rule for Christians that is different than one for non-Christians. It's a law for humans. Indeed, this is where Doc and I diverge. When he was first trying to explain the legitimacy of a police role for a Christian, he seemed to be saying that there is a kingdom "way" that is distinct from a non-kingdom "way" of right-relating (maybe to account for some cause of postmillenial advancement, or something). Whereas I see the NT as claiming that believers are empowered, enlightened, and motivated to right-relate in ways and to degrees that unbelievers are not.
But right-relating is just human/creature right-relating--nothing more or less. What accounts for distinction in accountability between humans has to do with what "is given"--not a qualitatively different standard.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/7/2007 6:47:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/7/2007 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Not all force is vengeance or retaliation. I agree and have for some time. I'm not quite sure why everyone is so defensive about this point. Who questioned it? Maybe Doc did; I'll reread the post. But it wasn't me.
Jeff: One can oppose Jesus' wisdom all day long without accountability so long as one does not covenant to him. So how do you squeeze arrogant ought of that?
Zach: One need not covenant to be arrogant. Dictionary.com describes 'arrogance' as overbearing pride. I don't see how accountability is a prerequisite for overbearing pride. When Doc says 'demonically arrogant' maybe he is implying that this characteristic forces God to smite. Maybe Doc means to tie a lot of other baggage to this phrase, but what I took him to mean and what I actually mean is simply that certain actions demonstrate arrogance. In this case it is true with or without a covenant.
Jeff: "Taking up the cross" most clearly means, in its context, that we will experience suffering for obeying him.
Zach: No. What you are describing is 'being on a cross.' Your interpretation renders 'Taking up' meaningless. Furthermore, the cross is not simply suffering. It is suffering that is deliberately put up us. If you want to symbolize just suffering, 'death' or 'disease' or 'natural disaster' work much better. 'Taking up the cross' is not a call to otherwise meaningless suffering. When the man saying it is also predicting that he will turn himself over to be crucified and his again on the third day, the phrase is loaded with meaning.
Jeff: So I absolutely disagree that being wrong (performing "action taken in opposition to God" ) implies arrogance--much less demonic arrogance. But REBELLION (i.e., disobeying while knowing your are disobeying) is as witchcraft, as the prophet Samuel said. That's the difference I see.
Zach: I agree. And that is exactly the caveat I made before 'defending' Doc use of the phrase. I said, "...anyone who hears these words and disobeys is acting in opposition to God." I think Doc skips over this for the same reason he skips over fundamental preliminary arguments about the Trinity i.e. he takes them to be assumed. If I say that a person who fails to tithe is sinning, we all just assume that the person in question is not in a coma. I suspect that Doc would agree that knowledge of disobedience is assumed here.
UNISON, I can't speak for Doc, but I take the call to yieldedness to be restricted to morally capable individuals. In the situation you described, I have to beef with you whatsoever. Wherever we draw the line we should always be motivated out of love. If we decide that we don't think a certain person actually has the capacity of a fully moral individual, then the question of being yielded to him or her is moot. I have friends who work in similar situations, and I have nothing but respect for you all.
Your hypothetical about a peacekeeping force works fine so long as it does not subject the will of other morally capable human beings to its own. (On another thread, I was toying with the idea that perhaps most people do in fact fall short of this standard "like sheep." )
UNISON: 1) It doesn't make any sense to say that purposefully taking human life is essentially demonic, when God takes human life for what some may think were questionable reasons (Ananias and Sapphira, 42 children mauled by 2 she-bears). Did God have "hopelessness" for Ananias and Sapphira? Moreover, would the death have even HAPPENED if it weren't PRONOUNCED UPON THEM by Peter, of all people? Hmmm. This leads to the next thought...
Zach: In these two instances of killing, neither is attributed specifically to God. If anyone is implicated it is Peter and Elijah respectively.
UNISON: 2) Greg seems to forget that God uses PEOPLE to execute his will many times. Isn't it possible that God would take human life via human activity? I think so. But this option doesn't even seem to be considered at all. I mentioned this to him before.
Zach: Isaiah and Habakkuk attribute the Baylonian invasion to the judgment of God. Then Babylon is judged for doing this evil thing.
POW: Certainly God is NOT the author of evil. But God can use anything for good.
Zach: My thoughts exactly. God can incorporate sinful actions into his plan for good.
Tom: But God DOES take life... OF COURSE there can be and are IN THIS LIFE hopeless situations. I recall one such situation including the entire human race except for Noah and his family (Gen. 6).
Zach: I don't have the time or patience to get into it now, but this the kind of story that must be addressed.
Tom: Now, maybe Greg would say only God can ever know enough to judge when taking life (like Ananias) is the thing to do. But that only disproves the contention that there’s always hope in this life for any conceivable situation.
Zach: I agree. I don't follow Doc at this specific point. We cannot be expected to imitate God's knowledge of the inner workings, solidification, or non-solidification of a soul.
More to come. The Spurs game is on...
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/7/2007 9:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: Not all force is vengeance or retaliation. I agree and have for some time. I'm not quite sure why everyone is so defensive about this point. Who questioned it? Maybe Doc did; I'll reread the post.
Jeff: Here's what you said:
Well, I don't think it's his opponents' disagreement with him that Doc considers demonically arrogant. It is the taking of life which he considers demonically arrogant. I happen to agree. I just don't think I'm going to make a habit of putting it into those terms since it comes across as name-calling. But just this once, after God says, "Vengeance is mine" and "Take up your cross and follow me," anyone who hears these words and disobeys is acting in opposition to God. Action taken in opposition to God can truthfully (even if foolishly) be described as both demonic and arrogant.
Sounds to me like your saying those two phrases clearly mean absolute pacifism. Otherwise, I don't see how you or Doc can argue the way you do. What are you saying above? How is it arrogant to do what you think is right? How much more so if one has no idea there are even any rules of life to ground the very relations of right and wrong. I'm at a loss to follow that logic. Can you put it in a syllogism so I can see how you're defining words?
Jeff: "Taking up the cross" most clearly means, in its context, that we will experience suffering for obeying him.
Zach: No. What you are describing is 'being on a cross.' Your interpretation renders 'Taking up' meaningless. Furthermore, the cross is not simply suffering. It is suffering that is deliberately put up us. If you want to symbolize just suffering, 'death' or 'disease' or 'natural disaster' work much better. 'Taking up the cross' is not a call to otherwise meaningless suffering. When the man saying it is also predicting that he will turn himself over to be crucified and his again on the third day, the phrase is loaded with meaning.
Jeff: When you get time, exegete the passage for me. I have absolutely no idea what you just said. I never said a word about "meaningless suffering." I'm talking about sufferings that are a result of obedience to Christ. How is that meaningless? But you seem to be saying that the suffering is due to what you don't do--namely, flee harm. As I understand it, the suffering is due to what you do--namely, live the way Christ lived.
There is a reason why they wanted to kill Christ. And it wasn't because he claimed to be a pacifist. Same with James. Same with Stephen. No evidence that I'm aware of that they were killed because of a belief in pacifism or statements about pacifism. Persecution happens independent of that.
Jeff: So I absolutely disagree that being wrong (performing "action taken in opposition to God" ) implies arrogance--much less demonic arrogance. But REBELLION (i.e., disobeying while knowing your are disobeying) is as witchcraft, as the prophet Samuel said. That's the difference I see.
Zach: I agree. And that is exactly the caveat I made before 'defending' Doc use of the phrase. I said, "...anyone who hears these words and disobeys is acting in opposition to God."
Jeff: You miss the point. "These words" are equivocal. Hence, one need not know what you claim to know from those words. Neither "vengeance is Mine" or "take up your cross..." mean absolute pacifism. Hence, without that interpretation of those words, arrogance is not necessarily implied in a teacher breaking up a brawl at school even if she heard or read those words.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/7/2007 9:42:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/8/2007 4:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I was reading back through what I wrote and I went too fast, made pretty strange typos, and sounded curt. Let's see if he does better this time.
--------------------------
Jeff: Where does Jesus say "No more of this." What were the disciples' questions about their use?
Zach: The arrest account a few verses later.
Jeff: Jesus didn't just talk about swords. He talked about other provisions. So what do they mean by the parabolic interpretation?
Zach: "'When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Nothing,' they answered. He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'
I think Jesus has shown them that physical provisions were not lacking when he sent them out with nothing. Now he tells them to be spiritually prepared. For they are about to enter into more escalated conflict. Taken with the "They is enough" translation and the "No more of this" later I think it is highly likely that Jesus is talking about spiritual weapons and provision. I agree with this:
"Guys, heretofore we have been in phase 1 of my coming. You had all your needs met during this time. But I'm fixing to check out of phase 1. Things are going to be different. Prepare yourselves accordingly"... But at bare minimum, those comments are signaling a change that is about to take place after he is gone--one that entails greater challenges.
I just disagree with what you mean by 'accordingly.'
Jeff: Why would we care what the early church thought if we don't care what Paul and Peter wrote?
Zach: I care. This another case of either/or. Either X is the 100% accurate infallible inerrant word of God or it is hogwash not worth caring about. I'm not choosing either one or the other. There is quite a wide spectrum of options in between. (BTW, the idea of 1 and 2 Peter and about half of what's ascribed to Paul being written by them is highly debatable. I specifically have problems with the canonicity of the pastoral epistles (which were almost certainly not written by Paul), but my problem is that they contradict the early Pauline epistles, not the gospels. And that doesn't mean that I think the pastoral epistles are worthless or hogwash.)
Jeff: I've only contended that being persecuted to death need not have anything to do with pacifism.
Zach: Agreed. Now let's talk about taking up one's cross. That does have a lot to do with non-violently yielding to persecution that not only hits the one yielding but also the surrounding neighbors who are also being persecuted.
Jeff: I've only argued that I don't see how one can prove that it is inherently wrong to participate in the State in some police power role.
Zach: Will you agree that it is inherently non-cruciform?
Jeff: Where did Jesus say to submit to sinners?
Zach: Matt 5:39 along with every time he said, "Take up your cross." Without someone harming you there is no cross to take up. The epistles are full of the command to imitate and live in identification with Jesus, and Jesus submitted to sinners.
--------------------------
I haven't checked this fact myself, but I believe the "Take up your cross and follow me" teaching is the most frequently occurring teaching of Jesus in the gospels. Whatever it means, it is very important and likely central to Jesus' message. I'll paraphrase it so you can read it the way I do.
"I am going into Jerusalem where we all know my enemies are waiting for me. They will arrest me and crucify me."
"Never! We won't let such a bad thing happen!"
"Shut up, Peter. That's the devil talking. That's the way of men, not of God. If you want to be my follower, you have to follow me. I'm on my way to be crucified, and my followers are no greater than me. Just as I willingly shoulder this burden, so will my followers. Just as I drink of this cup, so will my followers. We all take up our crosses daily."
There are two options presented here. One is attributed to Satan and to the interests of men, and it says things like, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." I don't doubt that this can be said with good intentions. The other says, "Take up your cross and follow me." This is attributed to Jesus and to the interests of God. Now technically, I can see how we can find a loophole since nothing is said about third-parties who are being oppressed. But this loophole falls away when we realize the world Jesus lived in. He didn't need to spell out the appropriate action to be taken concerning the oppression of others. Anyone could just watch him and realize what Jesus' stance was. Zealots had beat back foreign conquerors before. That was Israel's bread and butter. But Jesus didn't feel that the thousands of Jews crucified by Romans justified a military response. Other factions wanted to influence the political process from within. But Jesus was no Sadducee. Pharisees wanted to purify the nation and await God's vindication. That's the same general approach Jesus takes, they just do it poorly. "Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
But the standard response is that Jesus was focused on his own Christ-specific work and so we should only 'walk as he walked' to a certain degree. I don't think this view is supported by scripture. Time and again we are told that we are 'in Christ,' 'the body of Christ,' etc. I do not deny that Jesus' specific cross (along with the entire passion, resurrection, appearance, and ascension cycle) has unique consequences. I do, however, deny that Jesus' cruciform way of life is essentially different than the cruciform way or life he expects from his followers. If we are to justify lording-over force (toward fully morally capable human beings, not children or the mentally troubled or animals or demons), then we must justify it as cruciform.
Person A attacks Person B, and I am reasonably sure that I can stop the attack. What would Jesus' take-up-your-cross way of life have me do? What would Jesus do were he in my shoes? We all know good and well what he would do, because he was and currently is in that same situation. Watch the news and we can see what happens between attacker and victims. Is God's arm to short? No, but we trust in his faithfulness.
Jeff, I want to be clear that I am not opposed to fleeing harm. To use your phrase, the decision to flee or stay is one that requires discernment. I have not and don't intend to list rules prescribing when each response is appropriate. Jesus did both.
You said, "As I understand it, the suffering is due to what you do--namely, live the way Christ lived."
I agree with the addition that the suffering is also due to how the world responds to what we do. Living with cancer and struggling to make ends meet are not examples of taking up one's cross. People don't just happen to be crucified. The cross entails persecution. I shouldn't have said 'meaningless suffering' before. The two example above are hardly meaningless, but they do not carry the yielded-to-persecution meaning that the cross does.
I see those teachings of Jesus which are encapsulated in episodes like 'take up your cross' or the Sermon on the Mount as entailing what some have called 'militant pacifism' (i.e. not simply inactivity). We are both reasonably intelligent people and we disagree. From my point of view, I think you misunderstand. You, on the other hand, think the passages are equivocal, so I assume you reserve judgment while living your life under a 'working' ethic. I do not think they are equivocal. Different people can take entirely different messages from the same text, but I don't think we need attribute equivocalness to such a text simply because there is disagreement. Maybe any text is technically equivocal if there is more than one interpretation, but I suspect you are using the word in a stronger sense than that.
Now on to vengeance: I said, "...after God says, "Vengeance is mine" and "Take up your cross and follow me," anyone who hears these words..." Technically, I stand by that. But it would have been clearer if I had just said, "...after God says, "Take up your cross and follow me," anyone who hears these words..." What I was trying to refer to was Paul's use of the vengeance passage in Romans 12 which goes on to say, "if your enemy is hungry..." which refers back, I think, not only to Proverbs but also to the Sermon on the Mount where love for enemies extends to carrying the equipment of the man who is on his way to oppress and kill your people. Now that I spell it out, it's obvious that it's quite a stretch to expect anyone to retrace my mental wanderings from simply three words. I was unclear. My fault.
As to the teacher breaking up the brawl, I hesitantly will defend Greg's questionable word choice. Arrogance is 'overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.' If we take these all to be value-neutral terms, it is quite obvious that a teacher breaking up a brawl is technically arrogance.
1. Arrogance = overbearing pride evidence by a superior manner toward inferiors.
2. The teacher / student relationship is a superior / inferior relationship
3. The teacher uses power over the students.
4. The teacher acts out of concern for her valued student (in a value-neutral sense, this is pride).
5. So, the teacher breaking up the fight is displaying (value-neutral) arrogance.
I'm a high school teacher. I've done this. I'm not condemning it. But there are plenty of non-violent and effective ways of breaking up fights. Although I've broken up fights, I fortunately have not yet had to resort to physical force.
But from here on out, I'm with you guys. It was a stupid thing to write. Bad Greg! 
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/8/2007 4:37:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/8/2007 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | My crazy thought right now:
Our implicit ecclesiologies can be shown to be quite inadequate to true spiritual living when it comes to the subject of suffering for living a life of virtue in the real world. This is so stupid considering the fact that BOTH Jesus AND Paul talked so much about it.
Just a crazy thought.
"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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/8/2007 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: The two example above are hardly meaningless, but they do not carry the yielded-to-persecution meaning that the cross does.
Jeff: How does "the cross" mean yielded-to-persecution? I really think we are saying something so similar we are speaking past one another. If Christ told his apostles to flee persecution to another city, then they are not "yielding" to persecution. They are fleeing it. You must mean something different by "yielding" than I do. If all you mean is that we don't have the right to harm our persecutors to avoid suffering the persecution, then we agree. This has nothing to do with absolute pacifism, though. Risking harm to yourself to break up a volitional fight has nothing to do with persecution, per se. But it is also not absolute pacifism.
Absolute pacifism means that, even if you absolutely know that, by restraining person A from harming innocent person B, said intervention will result in both A and B being grateful and happier, you still ought not prevent the harm--you sit back and watch it happen like God does. And I understand why you think this is right. But it has to do with the unification you have talked about earlier. But that unification is not clear from the words alone. Rather, you are marrying a philosophical theodicy to those words. A person without that theodicy would not necessarily see them that way.
So I'm just thinking we ought to try to give others the benefit of the doubt in their motives. Because they may not even be aware of that theodicy by which you are unifying your scriptural theology. I, for one, have never heard of it until you articulated it. So I'm thinking it's not just that saying they are demonically arrogant is unwise. It seems presumptuous. People don't all have the same perspective by which to adjudicate questions of right-relating.
Everything is not perfectly clear, and we ought not judge people as if everything is perfectly clear. As I understand the commonly held meaning of arrogance, it is not just about erroneous perspective. Rather, it's about thinking better or greater of yourself than is justified by an intellectually honest assessment. By this meaning, one can be in factual error without being arrogant in killing, so long as one honestly believes that killing is the most loving thing to do in some given circumstance. Maybe I misunderstand what people mean by arrogant. If so, my bad.
On the other hand, if God has privately revealed to you or Greg that absolute pacifism is true, there is no reason to say what he did about Jesus teaching it. For the reader of that blog will justifiably assume from his allusions to the gospels that he means the gospels teach absolute pacifism. But the gospels are one thing, and private revelation (and even philosophical theodicy) is another.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/9/2007 12:32 AM (GMT -6) | | If my (or Doc's) view doesn't qualify as 'absolute pacifism,' so be it. If tried my best to explain myself. Not once (that I recall) have I said that fleeing is wrong.
Jeff: Absolute pacifism means that, even if you absolutely know that, by restraining person A from harming innocent person B, said intervention will result in both A and B being grateful and happier, you still ought not prevent the harm--you sit back and watch it happen like God does.
Zach: Well, I think that most the time there is more to do than just sit back and watch. So I will go ahead and reject 'mere' pacifism. Among Mennonites and the Gandhi/King tradition I know that there is a love/hate relationship with the label 'pacifist.' Kinda like the Anabaptist not wanting to call themselves by that name, but eventually giving into the label for convenience sake. Every once in a while I will point out in passing that pacifism is a misleading term. Sometimes I call it Christian pacifism or yieldedness instead. Now if it is as you say that yieldedness excludes fleeing persecution, then I guess that term does no better. If you have a better word for what I'm advocating, lay it on me. These are the best I've come up with. Sorry if they've led to misconceptions.
As far as arrogance is concerned, Greg's on his own. You are right to call it presumptuous. Maybe 'presumptuous' would have been a better word for him to use in the first case. I just know that I don't have any desire to beat that dead horse anymore.
You ask, "How does "the cross" mean yielded-to-persecution?" It doesn't. But the phrase taking up your cross does. I think we both agree that there is something voluntary about whatever taking up the cross refers to. But understand what I mean by yieldedness. Maybe it's not the perfect word. What I was taking about were unfortunate but not humanly chosen problems. Fleeing is not at issue here. Since there is no persecutor, there is no possible cross to take up and no one from whom to flee.
As to the unity in the understanding of the cross, I can only say that to me it's obvious. I know that probably won't convince anyone. But when Jesus tells his disciples to take up their crosses and follow him shortly after predicting his own travel to Jerusalem and subsequent death, it seems pretty clear that the disciple's cross is the same sort of cross as Jesus' and that the following they are to do is following his path to Jerusalem where he (and sometimes we) will suffer, be killed, and rise again. Even the slice-and-dice story headings in the NIV keep all this is one section.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/9/2007 12:39:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/9/2007 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach, that last post brings to light just how close we are. Additionally, you have now said that you respect the sometimes forceful intervention that D. used to do in hospitals. But the point is, God doesn't even do THAT, which is why that unification doesn't seem to work for many of us. So like you told Brandon,
If we want to follow God in his hypothetical killing of Ananias and Sapphira or of all human life in the world during the flood, then we must first develop some sort of rule that explains why it's ok to kill all humanity except one family but it's not ok to stop Stalin. Only after formulating this standard can we then proceed to use it responsibly.
That rule/standard for me is to increase as much as possible the most meaningful sentient satisfaction in sentient beings as I can. By that rule, as I understand it, pulling a suffering ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath trumps the rest a Jew would have experienced otherwise. But there is no written rule for every circumstance.
As I've always said, my comfort comes from knowing that God will not allow me to be tested above what I'm able AND that I'm commanded to be "fully persuaded" about my actions. This means, to me, that short of being persuaded to use force, I won't use force. God will bring to light in the judgment whether I was as honest as I ought to have been.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/9/2007 7:54:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/9/2007 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | What I'm saying is we must understand what God is doing if we are to imitate it. If we take it for granted that God killed all humanity in a flood, and recall that he allowed Stalin to kill at least 10 million people, we must understand why God killed in one case but yielded in the other. Maximizing sentient satisfaction (in the short-term/this-worldly respect) doesn't work. How does allowing Stalin to kill 10,000,000 people maximize sentient satisfaction more than say stopping him at 5,000,000?
If we can pretend certainty about anything, it's this. The death of millions of ordinary (some good some not so good) people is a net decrease in sentient satisfaction. If we stick to the almost certainly embellished Babylonian myth retold in in Genesis 5-9, then maybe you can make maximized sentient satisfaction work. But if we just look at the world around us we can see that God does not maximize sentient satisfaction ("this side of heaven" if I can use that phrase).
As to being fully persuaded and being bound to our consciences, of course. I agree. But the fact that some are persuaded one way and some another doesn't really get at the issue in question. This is not something we can resolve with a vote. If anything, Jesus' teaching about the narrow way would indicate that the truth would be an unpopular opinion.
But I hear what you are saying. I don't mean to attack anyone personally. We can all take comfort in the fact that God is just and merciful. In the long-term God will work everything out.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/11/2007 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: I don't understand this. What is this forceful intervention? It doesn't sound like something I'd call loving, especially if it is not being done by God.
Jeff: Below is D.'s words followed by what I thought was your agreement with his actions. Regardless, though, we don't see God even intervening to help people or babies incapable of moral volition when they are being harmed. Yet presumably you think parents are to act in behalf of their babies, which means that you think we are to do things that God is not otherwise going to do, right? This is what I was trying to explain when I said we are not to give only to people who ask. And as you have said, the whole thing about God giving to everyone who asks is an existential contradiction, anyway. So I'm not understanding why we should go on arguing from that particular unification until we can resolve these existential contradictions. All we have (apart from private revelation, of course) once we trump all else by the gospels is the degree of clarity therein.
Unison: I've worked in a psychiatric ward for adolescents and children for over 3 years. One thing that I've had to do during that time is physically restrain some of the patients when they are out of control, about to hurt themselves and others. There have been times where I and other staff have had to stop a kid from literally BLUDGEONING another kid, and threatening the whole unit, because they were in such emotional hurt and pain. I've had to place kids in 5 point restraints because of their homicidal or suicidal thoughts. Things like that.
There was no choice LEFT but to use force after all de-escalation techniques had been applied and failed.
This "force" stemmed more violence from happening.
This "force" sometimes got the kids hurt in the process. (RPA (a therapeutic environmental regulation process) is meant to reduce the amount of potential harm during a therapeutic hold. But if the kid thrashes around too much [like what often happens] there WILL be some kind of damage. Hell, I've had to go to the hospital for deep TEETHMARKS from doing this!)
Zach: UNISON, I can't speak for Doc, but I take the call to yieldedness to be restricted to morally capable individuals. In the situation you described, I have to beef with you whatsoever. Wherever we draw the line we should always be motivated out of love. If we decide that we don't think a certain person actually has the capacity of a fully moral individual, then the question of being yielded to him or her is moot. I have friends who work in similar situations, and I have nothing but respect for you all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/12/2007 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Zach: Brandon, I have to disagree with you about laws' impacting society. In our democracy, society creates the laws, not vice versa. If a majority did not want equal opportunity there would be no law imposing it. I will grant you that there are plenty of places where our democracy has failed and law have been passed without popular support. Upon actually learning what the patriot act says or what much of our federal environmental law says or pork-barrel line items, next to nobody is in favor. It's just that there are not enough people who care enough to influence the process. But these are not laws that impact society's values. Quite the opposite. Those who pass these laws keep them quiet precisely because they would not be passed if people knew about them.
I mean take race equality. Laws were passed that had little to no impact on the substantial minority's values. The law did very little good for blacks in the South for many years. Communities are what change values. If a person belongs to the community formed in the Senate chambers, then I'm sure what they say impacts that person's values. But everyone else is most impacted by their own communities. My family, church, school or place of business is what impacts me. Laws simply do not filter down to that level. If the law says, "equality" and the community says any sort of unbelievable racist nonsense, most people will still listen to the community. There is a mob mentality that transcends the sum of it's parts. The community actually takes on its own personality distinct from but not independent of the individuals. It is this personality who has the most influence in the world today, the ruler of this world. He must be fought with spiritual weapons. We have a different Spirit in us. When fighting Southern racism, don't waste your time passing a law. Instead find Dr. King and listen to him talk about loving your enemies, then march with him to Birmingham. This is how to be effective - by yielding.
Brandon: Here, let me put it like this. Rather than think of "laws impacting society," I think it is best to see the state and government--and the laws originating from the state--as part of the interconnected, but highly complex and differentiated, social order in which humans live. In that case, particularly in a representative system of government, lots of impacts on the law come from businesses, universities, interest groups, labor organizations, churches, etc., etc. The laws are shaped very much by those not in government. So I would agree with you there. But likewise, once laws come into force, they definitely shape what other organizations and institutions do and how people think and behave. So the movement goes both ways.
As an aside: The most important question, then after that, is whether the laws that government passes and enforces do justice to the political community and to all the other organizations and individual citizens of society. Equal civil rights and opportunities for women, for example, seems to me to be a highly important and positive step forward in recognizing that women are citizens just as men are citizens and both deserve equal treatment (imagine the coercion there!). But that is not the same as government deciding (because of the power of interest groups that push through a more extensive law in Congress or a parliament) that it will compel churches, schools, families, and businesses to behave internally as if those organizations are nothing more than extensions of the political community (imagine the coercion there!). In other words, churches should remain free to ordain or not ordain women, which may mean unequal treatment within the church. And women and men should be free to join and participate in the churches they are part of. And some families may decide the have hierarchical family structures, with father on top and mother second, rather than to have more of a joint-partnership arrangement. But I would say that that is their responsibility, not government's (oh boy, some government officials will be coerced not to overstep their bounds!). The civil-rights law should not presume government's omnicompetence within every sphere of society.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/12/2007 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: Why would we care what the early church thought if we don't care what Paul and Peter wrote? The latter, at least, were supposedly chosen by Christ and approved by signs and wonders. And didn't the early church claim to be interpreting them, anyway? If your repeated reminder that Jesus is lord--so we can trump Paul and Peter with our interpretations of Jesus--is valid, how much less should I care what the early church thought. Besides, much of what the Roman military about was pure unadulterated conquering--totally unlike the police work they did in Palestine. So I would need more details about the early church view to even know what it was, exactly.
Brandon: Stott points out that, "...it seems to be historically proven that for two centuries, until the conversion of Constantine, the great majority of Christians refused to serve as soldiers. There is clear evidence that their refusal related to the idolatrous practices associated with life in the Roman army."
What would that be? Emperor worship right? To simply point out that Christians refused to do this is a simplistic reading of history. Greg mentions this (Christian refusal to join the military the first three centuries) on the YouTube vids, but doesn't point out the why question. Today things would be entirely different. History progresses or regresses whichever way you look at it. 
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 6/12/2007 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, then. So, the early church Christians didn't participate in life in the Roman army because of "idolatrous practices"
Ok...
So maybe we oughta take a look at whether or not our American army has "idolatrous practices" that work against the Kingdom-minded conscience.
Can we think of any "idolatrous practices" that the United States Armed Forces engage in that would make a Christian not want to participate?
Remember. Idolatry is when we place anything in the rightful place of God.
"Unit, Corps, God, Country" --From the movie "A Few Good Men"
"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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/12/2007 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I can think of lots of things about our military that I disagree with. Whether I would call them idolatry, I'm not sure.
Well, we'd better get sure. We are the people of God who are to recognize and resist idolatry when we see it. If the CHURCH doesn't ask these questions, who will? No one.
*********************************
Jeff:
As far as idolatry, pledging allegiance to a state may qualify.
Unless that state understands itself to be UNDER GOD, both in word and in actual practice. If that was the case, pledging allegiance to the state could just a be another dimension of service to God himself.
Now, we have to ask ourselves the honest question: Do we qualify to say that?
If we don't, then yes, it seems to qualify as idolatry.
"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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/12/2007 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I'm just saying there are reasons to not participate in the military even if it's not idolatrous.
I hear you. What I want to know is this: are there systemic ways of life in the USAF that lead people into sanctioned "idolatrous practices". If so, what are they?
"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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/12/2007 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | To my knowledge, there are no "systemic" ways of life in the military that are idolatrous. I mean emperor worship is pretty clear. I can't think of anything like that off the top of my head in our military. So for our military, e.g., it gets down to "acts." Paul says fornication is not "for" the body, so we shouldn't join Christ with a harlot. He seems to be saying that some acts are just wrong no matter what because of what things are "for."
I'm not saying killing in the military can be proved to be as clearly wrong as joining Christ with a harlot. In fact, I suspect there are times that it could conceivably be justified. I'm just wondering if there are other acts like idolatry and "joining Christ.." that we are to deem just plain wrong because the end attained is not what I am "for."
With systems, it's the whole complicity issue. It's problematic for me. Because I see cases like the two mentioned (idolatry and "joining Christ to...") that seem to be absolutely forbidden. Granted, the obvious cases seem to be about God as opposed to neighbor. But can a system, like say a Nazi war machine production plant during WWII, be seen as so clearly "for" wrong-relating that it is inappropriate to become a "mean" in it, even if we must die to refuse participation? At this point, I tend to think so.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/12/2007 1:46:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/12/2007 8:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
1) Do you feel like there may be INFORMAL, yet BINDING structures that allow for idolatry in the USAF? If so, what are some of those?
2) about the "wrong relating"... Abu Gharib? Gitmo? Should a Christian participate in something that would sanction those kinds of things?
"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. | | Back to Top | | |
| 58 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:03 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 |
|
|