 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/9/2007 1:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Greg has just posted on his blog about the issue of withdrawal from Iraq. Superficially, he seems more confusing than ever. But I think I finally understand a way to articulate what he's trying to say. I think Greg is saying that christians have power and post-mortem motivation that non-christians don't have. Consequently, under the maxim that where less is given, less is required, Greg believes that force/violence actually can be the divinely chosen avenue for those who are not motivated/empowered sufficiently to live non-violently.
This, then, renders all judgments about what secular societies ought to do exceedingly complex. Because such judgments would require a relatively accurate knowledge about how much and what kind (positive or negative?) of motivation each secular society needs to minimize suffering, and how much self-control they have, etc.
Viewed this way (and this is a very consequentialist approach), he can advocate a kind of christian non-involvment in politics on the grounds that we can't be sufficiently informed to know how to regulate the use of the sword for large secular societies, effectively. Hence, our energies are best spent helping people via non-violent means. I must say, this is a consequentialist argument that makes sense and does no violence to the OT statements about the divine purpose of the Mosaic theocracy and the institution of government.
Even so, it does not follow from our insufficient knowledge of what is best for a whole society that we can't, in certain small-scale circumstances, have sufficient knowledge to know that exercising some force could be better than allowing a physical brawl between your kids to continue unabated (e.g). So I see no necessary conceptual link between his recent post and his claim that no force should be used against an intruder that is about to kill his kids. In such small-scale situations, it is much easier, IMO, to weigh what is at stake, from a purely consequentialist perspective.
I don't see, IOW, how he can be for staying in Iraq on consequentialist grounds and then refuse to use consequentialists grounds concerning the safety of his own kids. For even if christians have more power and motivation to attain, by more heroic self-sacrifice, what is consequentially better, it's still consequentialism that guides what we do and don't do. Why then are Iraqi children worthy of force in their behalf on those grounds, but not his own kids? God doesn't make arbitrary rules for christians with no regard to the consequences of those rules to the helpless, does He?
Maybe it has to do with Greg's belief that God promises that our right-relating will naturally result in others doing better or converting. IOW, there is more than one mode of consequentialism in the providence of God. And we, as Christians, have to live and breathe in both modes. That would make sense, I suppose. But a claim like that requires some impressive evidence.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/9/2007 2:46:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/9/2007 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Even so, it does not follow from our insufficient knowledge of what is best for a whole society that we can't, in certain small-scale circumstances, have sufficient knowledge to know that exercising some force could be better than allowing a physical brawl between your kids to continue unabated (e.g). So I see no necessary conceptual link between his recent post and his claim that no force should be used against an intruder that is about to kill his kids. In such small-scale situations, it is much easier, IMO, to weigh what is at stake, from a purely consequentialist perspective.
Tom: Still on fire, Jeff.
What also does not follow from our insufficient knowledge of the larger picture is that the Spirit cannot speak to a believer and instruct her to participate in that larger picture by involvement in any level of the use of force. If Greg admits that God uses wars (and police, force, etc.) in SOME instances to direct the world providentially, and if he also admits that WE can never sufficiently know whether any particular use of force is such a providential allowance, then Greg should refrain from judging the choices of people who claim to be led by the Spirit to involve themselves in those instances Greg admits MIGHT be God providentially allowing or directing things. Greg would have to add that under NO circumstances would God EVER use believers in those situations where God has decided to allows or direct the world through violence. And THAT is something he hasn't even come close to arguing (as far as I can tell). Without that, who is to say that God may direct a believer to work for the police, or FBI, or go to war? It's either absolute and unconditional pacifism (extending down to the smallest use of force), or shut up and let people follow the voice of the Lord.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/9/2007 10:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | jefscot: Viewed this way (and this is a very consequentialist approach), he can advocate a kind of christian non-involvment in politics on the grounds that we can't be sufficiently informed to know how to regulate the use of the sword for large secular societies, effectively. Hence, our energies are best spent helping people via non-violent means. I must say, this is a consequentialist argument that makes sense and does no violence to the OT statements about the divine purpose of the Mosaic theocracy and the institution of government.
Brandon: I'm sure we could have insufficient knowledge with regard to the use of the sword and at the end of the day make a "wrong decision." But maybe it isn't necessarily justice that we should be concerned about (as important as that is) as much as we should be concerned for the PURSUIT of justice. In other words, the pursuit of justice will involve "testing" from a Christian perspective. As Paul said, "Test everything. Hold onto the good." And so, we will continue to test in ways that can help us (either Christian or not) to discard what is bad and hold onto what is good. Regardless, we do in fact live in what Skillen calls a "highly complex and differeniated society" or as you say, "large secular societies." And so it seems from what you are saying here that the whole of this percieved argument is rather narrow in scope. Justice will deal with the full reality of politics and government. Meaning the multitude of factors that make up the political arena i.e. political offices, issues, motives, organizations and interests hang together in a larger historical and institutional framework that we must not overlook. To make sound judgements about governments responsibilities and our civic duties we need to see that big picture and how it all comes together. Please understand that from my perspective what has been said thus far is slightly isolated bits and pieces of political interest and concern.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/10/2007 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I want to explain what I was say'n above a little more.
One thing to remember in this (which is what I was saying that should not be overlooked) is that government should not consider itself omnicompetent to fullfill the duties and obligations and purposes of those organizations and institutions which make up our highly complex and differientiated society. Government's role is to "provide space" for the existence and flourishing of these entities. To recognize the unique identity of these things. To let them be what they are--such that they don't interfere with the proper role and domain of the other entities. That is, no community or institution of society may legitimately exercise all authority. Which means that every question of moral responsibility ought to be framed with clear reference to the specific institution, person or relationship that is competent to fulfill that responsibility. For example, it is not government's responsibilty to be parents or churches or food banks, or schools or corporations, etc. That government has the authority to rule people in their extracivic capacities as priests, schoolteachers, parents, scientists, businesness managers, artists or atheletes as if all human responsibility could be subsumed under the single authority of an omni-competent legislative, judicial will. We need to understand the proper range of limited repsonsibilities that governments are obligated to fulfill. Now, think about what you are saying here in terms of what you think Greg is saying about insufficent knowledge. Government will have insufficient knowledge or know-how in order to carry out the responsibilities that are the proper domain of each of these areas. Which is to say that those entities would have sufficient knowledge (though not perfect knowledge) to know what they are to do. So, for an example, an ecclesiastical authority will be the best one or the best determiner to know how to carry out its duties and obligations. A government should not be able to have jurisdiction over theological judgments. Even if the majority of people in the U.S. believe that God should be honored, congress should not pass laws about how citizens will honor God. Every opinion or conviction does not fall under government's jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is those specific identities that should worry about sufficient knowledge for their area, not a supposedly omnicompetent government or some other area.
I have to get back to work, but think about what this would mean in terms of boundaries and forcing (coercing) one area to not infringe on another area.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/10/2007 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: I think Greg is saying that christians have power and post-mortem motivation that non-christians don't have.
VFG: I've been trying to figure out how you came to this assessment. Where did you see Greg saying something similar or leaning toward this? I don't see where you got this.
----
Jeff: This, then, renders all judgments about what secular societies ought to do exceedingly complex. Because such judgments would require a relatively accurate knowledge about how much and what kind (positive or negative?) of motivation each secular society needs to minimize suffering, and how much self-control they have, etc.
Viewed this way (and this is a very consequentialist approach), he can advocate a kind of christian non-involvment in politics on the grounds that we can't be sufficiently informed to know how to regulate the use of the sword for large secular societies, effectively. Hence, our energies are best spent helping people via non-violent means.
VFG: Hmmm... again, I don't see where Greg is giving the blanket statement that christians ought to stay out of politics altogether. The first portion of his blog post seemed to be related to the war, the idea of just-war, and regarding the different sides that are trying to pull him into advocating their positions. The second seemed to use the first as reasons why we can't say, "this is the 'Christian position'" and gives a rationale why one person who's Christian would be involved in politics and another not.... the rationale being that political situations such as Iraq are so complex that it's near impossible for us to say, "this is where Jesus would draw the line."
Further, his previous post from a few months ago seemed to say that, from the pulpit, pastors and other leaders in that sphere should focus more on encouraging the laypeople to be like Christ in action, and regarding politics pastors and other leaders in that sphere ought to not tell the laypeople what position they ought to hold....because it's better to focus energies simply being like Christ. First, non-Christians will have more respect for our views if the layperson embodies the main teachings of Christ (love others). Otherwise... as 1 Cor says, we're just noisy, irritating symbols (that cause others to plug their ears).
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/10/2007 2:24:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/10/2007 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | VFG: Further, his previous post from a few months ago seemed to say that, from the pulpit, pastors and other leaders in that sphere should focus more on encouraging the laypeople to be like Christ in action, and regarding politics pastors and other leaders in that sphere ought to not tell the laypeople what position they ought to hold....because it's better to focus energies simply being like Christ. First, non-Christians will have more respect for our views if the layperson embodies the main teachings of Christ (love others). Otherwise... as 1 Cor says, we're just noisy, irritating symbols (that cause others to plug their ears).
Jeff: In a recent blog, Greg said it was demonically arrogant to kill another human for any reason. This tells me that he thinks christians, at least, can not legitimately use deathly force as a police or a soldier in a "just" war. He's not saying we should oppose all force. But rather that christians are not to use it. I haven't read his book, but I was told by two people on this forum that he said he didn't even think he should use force to defend his children against a violent intruder.
Putting all that together, he has modified his position a bit over time. I specifically remember him saying earlier that a christian could legitimately exercise deadly force as a police. But that sermon doesn't seem to be available on-line any longer. I tried that link the other day to no avail. Maybe the link has changed, though.
I'm not sure how to address your comments from this last post alone, but if you are saying that he deems as morally acceptable for christians to kill in the role of a policemen or soldier, I can only say that he seems to no longer hold to that. Whether he thinks christians can still be in government in non-violent roles, I'm not as sure about. Accept he does seem to be saying that a christian's personal time (that which is not controlled by job responsibilities) is best spent doing "power-under" activities--like trying to motivate voters/legislators to vote/legislate correctly.
I recommend that you go back to, say June, and read all his blog posts on politics. In those posts, he makes it pretty clear that he thinks the efficacy of "power-under" is superior to that of "power-over" (for the christian at least). He's not being contradictory, I don't think, now that I think I understand him. If you like, we can talk about each blog post starting in June, individually. That way, I think you can see his evolution more clearly. It's too easy to read equivocal statements in this last post as consistent with the old Greg you're familiar with until you get to the one that says killing is not justified for a christian under any circumstance. That's when you know he's truly saying something different, now.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/10/2007 6:42:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/10/2007 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: Brandon, I agree with everything you're saying about various jurisdictions. But I don't see how this affects Gregs argument about complexity. It seems obvious to me that power/jurisdiction is typically usurped by the stronger institutions from the weaker ones whenever this can be done with little or no consequences. And I don't see any hopeful candidates in major elections even talking about changing this state of affairs. And when they do (like Bob Dole bragging about his love of the 10th amendment), they're obviously propagandizing (obvious, i.e., because of their own past records).
Brandon: Exactly. Which is why we would call it injustice--when those jurisdictions usurp their authority over against the other jurisdictions. My point is/was that those jurisdictions know best what is to be done, not necessarily "the almighty government." But as these things are what they are...schools are schools, churches are churches...corporations are corporations...volunteer organizations are volunteer organizations...these will invariably put up boundaries and limits and conditions upon the other jurisdictions. In other words, it seems to me that there is this inherent coercion to behave or be a certain way by virtue of the fact that these jurisdiction exist as they are different from other jurisdictions.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/11/2007 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I think I see what you're getting at, Brandon. Along those lines, if the state, to solidify it's own omni-jurisdictional influence, wanted to make all charitable acting and giving a function of the state beauracracy alone, I suspect Greg would have to say we should, then, be unsubject to the state. And though being unsubject isn't coercive, per se, it is a conscious posture that results in conflict and over-bearing state coercion.
The state doesn't like competition from self-reliance and private charity since these can expose the exaggerated nature of governmental fear-mongering about how "evil" the other side/party is. We see this with how the Judaean government resisted Christ. In their mind, Christ was the true threat to the safety of their nation. And in one sense, he was--because governments will literally kill to preserve, extend, and usurp jurisdiction. Neither Caesar nor Pilate would have peacefully given up jurisdiction over Judea just because Judeans converted to Christ and turned into productive, harmonious citizens with little or no need for civil government.
At best, Rome would have been like Lincoln. In Lincoln's first inaugral, he said he wouldn't initiate any hostilities against the seceded states so long as they paid their tariff. He was perfectly fine with taxation without representation as long as his government was the recipient of the taxes.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/12/2007 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Erg, like sands through the hourglass... time slips away too quickly. This is all I have time to reply to for right now, but I'll be back..
Jeff: I haven't read his book, but I was told by two people on this forum that he said he didn't even think he should use force to defend his children against a violent intruder.
VFG: Due to a short July 4th conversation I had with him, I bought the book to find out what exactly his views were. I searched for the area in the book related to this (what you said above), and I think the people who read this in the book may have misinterpreted what he was saying. He basically was saying (at least what I got out of it) is that we ought to cultivate the type of life and perception of others that Jesus would have. He wasn't saying that we ought to lay down on the floor like a doormat if someone were to attack our children, families etc. But he's against the tit-for-tat mentality: the "you hurt me, I'll do the exact same thing to you." It's just as bad to be a doormat and do nothing to save your family, but the person who has cultivated a character with Christ as the focal-point would also have a love for the attacker and would search for the least violent means possible while still protecting one's family. Perhaps the person with the family may see an opportunity to tell the person about Christ instead; may want to convince the person that there's a better life; may want to try to find out what is driving the attacker to the current action in which he/she is engaged in order to bring Christ into the attacker's life.
(Wasn't it Socrates or Plato who seemed to say that a crime could harm the attacker's soul worse than the victim's?)
Jesus would not resort to violence, sure. But Greg was also quick to say that he wasnt' sure exactly what he would do in that situation (meaning, he's not sure what means he would resort to when in the same situation). Nobody can know what they'd do in the heat of a situation... the Milgram study certainly showed us that. But mental practice can prepare us for the game. The main issue is this: in what type of mental practice are we engaging ourselves now?
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/12/2007 1:35:15 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/12/2007 3:14 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Regarding the Jesus not resorting to violence (p. 166 from MoaCN) in situations such as self-defense, defending our kids, or w/e: "I think it is clear from Jesus' teachings, life, and especially his death that Jesus would choose nonviolence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same. At the same time, I have to confess that I'm not sure this is what I'd do. I honestly admit that, like most people, I don't yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do."
Here's how I'd respond though to the quote: The difference between Jesus and us is that he'd know exactly what to say and know exactly what is really causing the person to harm another and know how to get to the root of the problem. We're not privy to this kind of information. We can only hope that the Holy Spirit may enlighten us when in the heated-situation. But if we aren't omniscient, we're left with simply doing what we can and assess the situation as best as we can.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/12/2007 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | VFG: "I think it is clear from Jesus' teachings, life, and especially his death that Jesus would choose nonviolence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same. At the same time, I have to confess that I'm not sure this is what I'd do. I honestly admit that, like most people, I don't yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do."
Jeff: I really appreciate that quote, VFG. But it's a bit confusing to me? On the one hand he's convinced ("it is clear") that "a person who" is "TOTALLY conformed to the image of Jesus Christ" "would choose nonviolence." I.e., Jesus WOULD choose non-violence even if his kids lives were at stake. Now one could assume that there just is a non-violent solution that is as effective as force for protecting his kids. But I don't see how he can get that from scripture, much less reason. Especially since he says God benevolently orchestrates governmental force unto His own ends.
And, to my mind, scripture seems to say that if God gives us knowledge of what is the Christ-like thing to do, we are necessarily obligated to do it. It seems to me, IOW, that scripture talks about growth into "TOTAL" Christ-likeness in terms of BOTH a strengthening of the will AND a renewing of the mind--and that God doesn't renew our mind without strengthening us to do what we come to know is Christ-like, if we're ever in a circumstance to apply it. For He doesn't allow us to be tested above what we are able, supposedly.
Thus, Greg's comments, per my view of sanctification, equate to an obligation to never use force. For the christian, this rules out just war soldiering and using force to protect your kids. But maybe he understands sanctification different than I do. Maybe he believes he can legitimately act contrary to what he believes is Christ-like simply because he can't "yet quite see how it would be moral to do what" he "believe[s] Jesus would do." My mind doesn't work this way.
If I believe scripture plainly obligates me to do a thing, my understanding of all of its implications is irrelevant to me. E.g., some christians might not understand why God would expect people to confess Christ before men if persecution and suffering are the result of it. But I don't see how this affects the obligation at all.
Indeed, it almost seems, to me, like Greg is saying that he tends to think that Christ-likeness is not immoral. And this creates the dilemma. So in affect, Greg is really saying he is not totally convinced he is right about what he thinks constitutes Christ-likeness. And anything not of faith is sin. Presumably, then, God will not allow him to be tested above what he is able. God will only allow Greg to be tested, thus, if He knows that Greg truly is sufficiently more certain of one option than the other.
The way he words it, though, it just seems like there is no role for faith--as if he must understand how Christ-like behavior satisfies some ethical system before he can act on it. But if so, in what sense is it really faith? By that view, we ought not be studying the NT, we should be doing systematic ethical analysis, per some chosen ethical system.
I just don't know how to make sense of him at times. And this is the same guy who says we're supposed to just trust God's supposed promise that right-relating by christians will change the world. Why trust a promise about empirical effects without understanding how it could work, on the one hand, and yet allow for opting out of christ-like behavior because of a lack of such understanding, on the other? I don't get it.
Go read that first blog I gave you the link to. There, Greg seems to pretty clearly say that killing, per se, is wrong.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/13/2007 6:28:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 9/14/2007 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Since I believe this issue is one that needs to be studied throughly and cannot really be solved through posting I will not try to counter the arguments given here, but simply suggest that people read up on the Just War doctrine, which has historically been the churches position throughout its history and add that non-violence as a stance has only been given any prominance within the last hundred years (though there have been small groups before who have advocated it). This is not to say church history is all, but rather it should be respected and should not be overturned unless there is a good reason to do so.
Second, non-violence is predominantly applied to Jesus by the person's prior belief that this is how Jesus would act, rather than looking at scripture as a whole (including the Old Testament). People who believe it typically funnel all Jesus's action through Matthew 5 about turning the other cheek and seem to simply ignore any scripture that protrarys Jesus in a negative or judging light.
Third, I smile when I I read statements such as "it is clear from Jesus' life....etc,. that he would choose non-violence." Really?! Given that the majority of the great biblical teachers of the past haven't seen how "clear" this is, I find such a statement close minded and, again, more from preconceived views of what Jesus is like, rather than what scripture actually teaches.
Finally, I would suggest two recent book for those who find the non-violence view as I do, unscriptural, unchristian and, most of all, unloving. "When God Says War Is Right," by Darrell Cole and "Bewteen Pacifism and Jihid" by J. Daryl Charles. Excellant starting points on what scripture and church history actually teaches.
One more side note: Having posted on this site for a number of years (not as much so recently), it has saddened me to no longer be able to recommend Doctor Boyd's books to people any longer. While his books have taught me much in the area of theology (though I no longer believe as he does as far as open theology is concerned), I have found that his most recent books (Repenting of Religion, Matrix and the particularly horrible last one about whether or not we are a Christian nation) have pretty much become books of emotion, rather than sound argument and study of scripture. Doctor Boyd has apparently opted for a view of "love" which is devoid of scripture basis and mainly consists of what "feels" good and seems good to him rather than love that God calls us to. Anyway, these are my impressions from his books and interactions with him from the past. Unfortunately, nothing in his present writings suggests he has changed his mind.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/18/2007 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Been busy, as you can imagine. Now in Iraq! Amazing. Got to ride in a C130. Biggest friggin plane I ever saw.
Well, I haven't kept up with this, but I wanted to add something.
If Greg believes that God sometimes uses war/violence to further his purposes, then doesn't it follow that Greg have a vision/understanding of God that makes room for God using violence? And if Greg can say this about God, isn't he saying it about the Son (Christ)? I mean, isn't it the case that whatEVER we saw about God, we essentially say about Christ, and that the incarnate revelation of God in Christ isn't the ONLY place God gets revealed. If God, Greg thinks, something uses violence, then Greg attributes the approval of the use of violence to the Son. But then what happens to "But we never see Jesus firing guns and killing people!" if we say the Son shares in the choice to sometimes use violence and war? How do we fit the incarnate Word into that?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/18/2007 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I don't think Greg would deny that the Son is complicit in whatever divinely providential "orchestrating" of force is occuring in the world. These last few posts have made it clearer than ever, to me, that this is about postmillenialism. E.g., he says:
In this light, it seems to me there is in principle no inconsistency in a Christian being personally committed to non-violence and yet embracing the opinion that a particular government should in some tragic instances go to war or use violence in other contexts. (I’m not saying I personally believe this, only that there’s no inconsistency in believing this way).
Note Greg seems to be saying he doesn't take that approach. He's already said that our power-under benevolence will result in changing the world. So I think Greg holds to two ideas that ground his approach:
1) Because Christ lived a non-violent life, this is indicates that there was no conceivable circumstance where Christ would have used force/violence.
2) Since Greg needs a postmillenial explanation for the parable of the kingdom being likened to leaven, he needs an explanation of how christian behavior is unique enough to cause the acceleration of conversion.
I think 1) is a really weak argument. After all, most people live non-violent lives. This implies nothing about whether they would have used force under certain extreme circumstances that they never faced. 2) is not clear scripturally, to me. And he still hasn't explained how he reconciles it with free-will and open theism. I wish he'd quit playing word games and just lay it out there. I mean, why just say "I'm not saying I peronally believe this." Why not just say WHAT he believes? All in ONE post.
But on another note, how can he say "that a particular government should in some tragic instances go to war or use violence in other contexts?" It doesn't follow from the fact that God providentially orchestrated the death of Christ (down to the very day of Passover) that those who killed and conspired against him should have done so--unless he's using the word "should" in a very unusual sense.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/19/2007 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | |
PLANIS said...Been busy, as you can imagine. Now in Iraq! Amazing. Got to ride in a C130. Biggest friggin plane I ever saw. Well, I haven't kept up with this, but I wanted to add something. If Greg believes that God sometimes uses war/violence to further his purposes, then doesn't it follow that Greg have a vision/understanding of God that makes room for God using violence? And if Greg can say this about God, isn't he saying it about the Son (Christ)? I mean, isn't it the case that whatEVER we saw about God, we essentially say about Christ, and that the incarnate revelation of God in Christ isn't the ONLY place God gets revealed. If God, Greg thinks, something uses violence, then Greg attributes the approval of the use of violence to the Son. But then what happens to "But we never see Jesus firing guns and killing people!" if we say the Son shares in the choice to sometimes use violence and war? How do we fit the incarnate Word into that? Tom
The C130 is a pipsqueak compared to the C141 or C5. Now THOSE are some seriously huge planes. You'll probably see a few while you're over there.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/19/2007 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I forgot that there was one more line of reasoning that Greg uses that seems to tie into postmillenialism. It's his theodicy:
Notice, God didn’t give animals to each other to eat. Nor did God give animals to humans to eat. This is reiterated in Genesis 2 when the Lord tells Adam he was "free to eat from any tree in the garden" (vs. 16-17). Adam was not free to eat any of the animals.
It seems, then, that the food chain in God’s ideal creation was non-carnivorous and non-violent. I have to, of course, grant that there’s room for debate over how literally or figuratively these passages should be interpreted. But even if one sees these chapters as mostly, or even totally, figurative, I don’t see how one can get around the implication that God’s ideal creation was, and is, non-violent.
It seems that Greg is saying (especially when you read the other posts that deal with how Christus Victor plays into it) that to return the world to non-violence, we have to live non-violently in a sense that looks "impractical." He says, for example:
3) We who have committed our lives to Christ are called to be faithful, not practical. Jesus’ choice to die rather than defend himself with violence is our example, and his choice certainly didn’t look practical on Good Friday.
That statement seems problematic to me. Isn't it obvious that Christ knew he was supposed to die? But if we deny that Christ's death was propiatory with respect to sin, then maybe his death really was just a supreme example of non-violence. But then all the statements of the NT about how Christ's death is atoning for those who knew or know nothing of his example are meaningless.
But this theodicy seems to be why Greg's theory of the "atonement" plays down the aspect of Christ's death which concerns the remission of sins. For if Christ came to propitiate for sin, we can see exactly why he escaped harm before "his hour" and yet made no attempt to escape when "his hour" had arrived. And if this is the case, it explains quite parsimoniously why he didn't even try to escape. And in that case, Christ's non-violence during his passion has nothing to do with what Greg is saying.
Moreover, it doesn't follow from an ethic of "practicality" that violence should be used against a government anyway. According to just war theory, even defensive war is impractical except when certain criteria is fulfilled. And yet there is nothing pacifist about just war theory. In any case, I can't understand how using violence against the government can ever be practical for small numbers of people. Such "rebellions" are unsuccessful and tend to get other people hurt or killed.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/19/2007 7:47:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:07 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 |
|
|