 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Gun Supporters | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/21/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Electra,
Anything Jesus said cannot be considered more or less true. Even if it has more to do with one subject than another, it is still true.
Again, vengeance is not the same as judgment. Those consigned to hell are not consigned because of vengeance, i.e. to get even, but they are consigned because they are judged to deserve it through their rejection of the gospel message.
Maybe you need to consider the wages of sin is death and some people collect their wages sooner than others, regardless of Jesus' sacrifice for all.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/21/2003 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm feeling kind of guilty about the way this conversation has turned out, Electra. It's gotten too tense. Perhaps we should just accept that we are ships passing in the night on this one, and move on? A resolution of this conflict just isn't as important to me as keeping things cool between us.
Peace? [You pacifist, you!  ]
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/22/2003 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | John:
quote:
I've been thinking about your definition of love. If by "ascribing infinite worth" you mean "not ever killing" a man who is killing schoolchildren one by one, then by definition I am NOT "ascribing infinite worth" to the schoolchildren he continues to murder, and I therefore am actually misjudging the relative worth of all involved in that particular scenario.
Electra: Although we hear about such scenarios in the news, the likelihood that we will find ourselves in the middle of one is very small. In our country, we have a police force that is trained and equipped and authorized to intervene in such scenarios. It seems to me that making it easier for people to carry concealed, loaded weapons in public places such as shopping malls, stadiums, churches, bars, and campuses makes a scenario in which someone pulls a gun and starts shooting randomly into a crowd more likely, not less.
John:
quote:
Therefore I honestly don't see how the concept of "infinite worth" can possibly apply to everyone. The only one who is worthy of such ascription is God himself, who is in fact of infinite worth; all others' worth is relative to God.
Electra: Your question on “infinite worth” is a good one, but I’m not sure how to approach it. What did you think of this response to honorman?: The good of the whole is the realm of ethics, but love upholds the worth of each one. This worth is not relative to their relationship to me—e.g. my child is worth more than my enemy; but rather is relative to their relationship to God—e.g. Jesus died for each person so they could come to live in love with God and neighbor.
Iconoclast:
quote:
How about this:
1. You know Hitler is in the midst of committing genocide.
2. You know he will not stop but must be stopped.
3. The only means you have to stop him is to kill him.
I think that to love Hitler given this scenario would be to kill him. If you were in the midst of committing genocide and no one could talk you out of it and the only way someone could stop you would be to kill you do you think it would be a loving thing to do for that person to stop you from committing more murders (like a million more let's say) by killing you? My answer to this is yes. I would consider it loving for someone to stop me from murdering millions of people, even if it meant killing me.
In a more sinister scenario in which killing is systematic (e.g. concentration camps vs. schoolyard rampages), the most loving thing to do—both for the enemy who is responsible for the systematic killing and the people who are threatened by this system—might be to take the guilt of assassination upon ourselves. I would not arm myself or consider other means of deadly force until I faced such a foe.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/22/2003 3:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm feeling kind of guilty about the way this conversation has turned out, Electra. It's gotten too tense. Perhaps we should just accept that we are ships passing in the night on this one, and move on? A resolution of this conflict just isn't as important to me as keeping things cool between us.
Peace? [You pacifist, you! ]
Brett
I feel guilty too, and I appreciate the olive branch [but that doesn’t mean I’m a pacifist! ]. It’s been (yet another) a long thread on (yet another) complex issue and we are both giving it our best shots—but not at the expense of keeping things cool between us. 
“You do not truly know someone until you have fought with him” (or something like that). ~ Seraph to Neo, from Matrix Reloaded
Always,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/22/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
“You do not truly know someone until you have fought with him” (or something like that). ~ Seraph to Neo, from Matrix Reloaded
Ha! What a perfect quote. I still haven't seen this movie, believe it or not. I think we are going to be able to go Friday night. Then I'll finally be able to look at the Matrix thread without fearing that the plot will be given away!
quote:
Iconoclast:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about this:
1. You know Hitler is in the midst of committing genocide.
2. You know he will not stop but must be stopped.
3. The only means you have to stop him is to kill him.
I think that to love Hitler given this scenario would be to kill him. If you were in the midst of committing genocide and no one could talk you out of it and the only way someone could stop you would be to kill you do you think it would be a loving thing to do for that person to stop you from committing more murders (like a million more let's say) by killing you? My answer to this is yes. I would consider it loving for someone to stop me from murdering millions of people, even if it meant killing me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a more sinister scenario in which killing is systematic (e.g. concentration camps vs. schoolyard rampages), the most loving thing to do—both for the enemy who is responsible for the systematic killing and the people who are threatened by this system—might be to take the guilt of assassination upon ourselves. I would not arm myself or consider other means of deadly force until I faced such a foe.
Okay, I can’t resist!  You seem to say that even if we would be doing “the most loving thing”, we should still feel guilty about it. This is what I’m not following. Why should we be guilty for doing the most loving thing possible? Isn’t that our obligation? Are we indeed put into a position where there is no choice for which we can have a clear conscience? If we don’t do the most loving thing, we are guilty of sin, right? And if we DO the most loving thing, you seem to say that we are still guilty. Do you understand why your position is coming across as a moral catch-22 to me?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 5/22/2003 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | F.Y.I.,
attached below are two recent articles -- the first reflecting upon the most recent twist in the (ongoing) controversy over Minnesota's new "gun law"; and,
the second, commenting upon the "status quo" of politics & gun control at the National level.
Peace & blessings,
<><
Edited by - Mayflower on 05/22/2003 6:32:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 5/22/2003 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | MINNESOTA :
CHURCH FIRST TO FIRE AT GUN LAW ,
By Bill Gardner
"PIONEER PRESS," S†. Paul, Minnesota
May. 21, 2003
A week before Minnesota's new handgun permit law takes effect,
it is under attack.
Two churches say the law infringes on religious freedom by requiring them to tell each person who enters the church that guns aren't allowed.
The Edina Community Lutheran Church filed suit in Hennepin County District Court contending the new law is unconstitutional as it applies to churches. Another church has voted to join the lawsuit, and others are considering similar action this week.
"The law requires us to personally notify every person that firearms are prohibited as they enter the church," said Pamela Fickenscher, pastor at Edina Community Lutheran Church. "We thought that would not create a very hospitable attitude every Sunday morning."
The church should be able to decide how it wishes to welcome its worshipers, Fickenscher said.
"Our entire church property is a place of peace and sanctuary, not a place for firearms," Fickenscher said. "As worshipers arrive, they should be greeted with a welcome and a blessing, not a demand that they drop their guns."
David Lillehaug, attorney for the church, said the congregation "shouldn't have to have ushers at the door demanding compliance with the state firearms law."
Since word of the lawsuit has spread in the religious community, other faith communities have expressed interest in joining the suit.
"We expect churches of many denominations to join this lawsuit," said Lillehaug, a former U.S. attorney. "There is great concern about the government's camel getting its nose under the religious tent."
Leslie Sandberg, spokeswoman for Attorney General Mike Hatch, said, "We have received the lawsuit, and we are reviewing it."
Sandberg said the attorney general has received no other challenges to the new law.
The new [Minnesota] law requires sheriffs to grant handgun permits to most adults who seek them. Passed last month after an emotional debate, it eliminates a requirement that people demonstrate a need to carry a gun for their job or personal safety. State officials estimate the change could lead to as many as 50,000 new permits in the first year.
The Edina church doesn't want guns in its parking lot, although the new law says private establishments, such as churches, cannot ban guns in parking areas.
Fickenscher said the church will have signs banning firearms in the parking lot.
State law dictates precisely where the signs banning guns must be (within four feet of the entrance and 4 to 6 feet above the floor), how large the signs must be (at least 187 square inches), how large the letters must be (at least 1½ inches high), and what they must say (the sign must declare that the establishment "bans guns in these premises").
"We're not going to comply with the state's requirement regarding the language on the signs," Fickenscher said.
The church is using a sign of its own choice, which reads:
"Blessed are the peacemakers. Firearms are prohibited in this place of sanctuary."
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, declined to comment on the lawsuit.
In related Minnesota developments, the Virginia City Council has said it will ban handguns from city facilities in defiance of the new state law. The Meeker County Board has voted unanimously to request that handguns be prohibited from the grounds of the Meeker County Courthouse.
The Legislature is considering amending the law to allow local governments to ban handguns on public property.
[end]
_____________
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 5/22/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | |
NATION :
The ban on 19 types of assault weapons,
such as the AR-15, expires next year
WHY NO ONE SHOOTS STRAIGHT ON GUNS,
Published in "Time" Magazine
May 26, 2003
Republicans have it both ways. Democrats are mum.
And the gun lobby just gets stronger
When it comes to guns,
politicians are figuring out what clay pigeons have known
for a long time: it's safer to be a moving target. So it is that President Bush can win points with gun-control groups by sticking to his campaign promise to sign an extension on the assault-weapons ban when it expires next year, while House majority leader Tom DeLay can make the gun lobby happy by suggesting, as he did last week, that no such bill will ever reach Bush's desk. And Democrats can fuss and fume over how Bush and the Republicans are trying to have it both ways — while quietly breathing a sigh of relief at being spared a vote that would expose the party's own divisions on the issue.
The pantomime will continue, for behind it lies a new reality:
two years into the Bush Administration, the gun lobby is on a winning streak.
Bill Clinton muscled through the most significant new gun laws in 30 years, including the 1994 assault-weapons ban and the 1993 Brady Law, requiring background checks for gun buyers. But gun groups got some revenge in the 2000 election, when they were credited with costing Al Gore at least three states, including his home, Tennessee.
Most of the gains for the gun lobby have been quiet ones.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has expanded the government's view of the
Second Amendment, stating explicitly that it protects an individual's right to
possess and bear arms — a departure from the longstanding view that this right was limited to state militias. Ashcroft has also proposed shortening the length of time the FBI is required to keep records of background checks. He wants it reduced to a single business day; the Clinton Administration required 90.
And while the National Rifle Association wasn't pleased with Bush's statements
in support of the assault-weapons ban, no one expects the President to lobby for it. At the same time, Bush has promised to sign the NRA's top priority: legislation that would shield gunmakers and dealers from lawsuits.
Part of the reason for the gun lobby's success is that the political landscape shifted right after 9/11, when the nation lost its sense of security and gun sales soared. Whereas married women were long thought to be the constituency most sympathetic to new restrictions on guns, they were the group most supportive of allowing pilots to be armed in the cockpit, according to focus groups conducted by Republican pollster David Winston.
Many Democrats are nervous about putting the gun issue on the front burner.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called upon Bush to pressure
G.O.P. House leaders to bring the extension of the ban to the floor, but she conceded that Democratic leaders would be leery of strong-arming their own members on such a sensitive issue. "We would probably lose some votes,"
she said. When guns came up during the first debate among the 2004 Democratic presidential contenders earlier this month, the candidates — with the exception of
Al Sharpton — were virtually silent.
That's a significant change from the last presidential campaign, when Gore proposed licensing gun owners. Back then, whenever Bush was asked about guns, he contended that what's needed is not new gun laws but enforcement of existing ones. However, a study last week by Americans for Gun Safety — a relatively moderate gun-control group that does not support licensing gun owners or registering their weapons — found that the Bush Administration has done little better than its predecessor at prosecuting those who break gun laws. The group found that of the 25,002 federal firearms cases over the past three years, fully 85% were for violations of just two statutes — illegal possession by a felon or another prohibited buyer and possession of a firearm during a violent or drug-related crime. The remaining 20 major federal gun laws, which include statutes designed to keep weapons out of the hands of children, are rarely enforced. The Justice Department disputed the study, saying many prosecutions have been shifted to state and local jurisdictions, some of which have tougher penalties.
It is on the enforcement issue that some Democrats think they may have found an opening to talk about guns again. But no one is very eager. Taking aim on the gun issue is one thing; pulling the trigger is another.
[end]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/22/2003 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ha! What a perfect quote. I still haven't seen this movie, believe it or not. I think we are going to be able to go Friday night. Then I'll finally be able to look at the Matrix thread without fearing that the plot will be given away!
I can’t wait to read your review.
quote:
Okay, I can’t resist! You seem to say that even if we would be doing “the most loving thing”, we should still feel guilty about it. This is what I’m not following. Why should we be guilty for doing the most loving thing possible? Isn’t that our obligation? Are we indeed put into a position where there is no choice for which we can have a clear conscience? If we don’t do the most loving thing, we are guilty of sin, right? And if we DO the most loving thing, you seem to say that we are still guilty. Do you understand why your position is coming across as a moral catch-22 to me?
OK, I get the catch-22 thing. I’m going on a trip over Memorial Day weekend, and I will give this question some thought. Until then, here is my initial response: To whatever extent it is a moral catch-22, I would hold the enemy responsible for it. God is reasonable to prohibit us from killing each other. People who leave us with no alternative but to kill are unreasonable.
The example that comes to mind is David when he learned that his son Absalom had finally been killed. Toward the end of his reign, Absalom was trying to kill David and sieze the thrown for himself. Some of the despicable tactics he used included turning the people against David by spreading lies about him and raping David’s wives (Absalom’s own step mothers). Plus he tried to kill David.
But when David heard that his soldiers had finally defeated Absalom, he responsed thus: “David the king was grieved and moved. He went to his chamber and wept. And as he wept, he wept and said, ‘Oh my son! Oh my son, would to God I had died for thee. Oh Absalom, my son, my son” (not sure if I got that right. It’s in 2 Sam. somewhere).
Absalom’s death was ethically justifiable. Yet David was deeply grieved and wished that he would have died in his place instead. What’s up with that?
Have a nice weekend,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/23/2003 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra:quote:
OK, I get the catch-22 thing. I’’m going on a trip over Memorial Day weekend, and I will give this question some thought. Until then, here is my initial response: To whatever extent it is a moral catch-22, I would hold the enemy responsible for it. God is reasonable to prohibit us from killing each other. People who leave us with no alternative but to kill are unreasonable.
The example that comes to mind is David when he learned that his son Absalom had finally been killed. Toward the end of his reign, Absalom was trying to kill David and sieze the thrown for himself. Some of the despicable tactics he used included turning the people against David by spreading lies about him and raping David’’s wives (Absalom’’s own step mothers). Plus he tried to kill David.
But when David heard that his soldiers had finally defeated Absalom, he responsed thus: ““David the king was grieved and moved. He went to his chamber and wept. And as he wept, he wept and said, ‘‘Oh my son! Oh my son, would to God I had died for thee. Oh Absalom, my son, my son”” (not sure if I got that right. It’’s in 2 Sam. somewhere).
Absalom’’s death was ethically justifiable. Yet David was deeply grieved and wished that he would have died in his place instead. What’’s up with that?
Well, first off, I would say that the David/Absalom situation is somewhat unique in that it involves a father/son relationship. David’s grief over Absalom’s death can therefore reasonably be attributed to his paternal feelings for his son, and not some sort of bloodguilt.
Secondly, I’m not arguing that someone who uses deadly force in self-defense should feel warm and fuzzy about it. Certainly, it would be a horrific thing to experience to kill someone, even if it was the most loving thing to do (as plenty of war veterans would testify). Perhaps one would even feel guilty. I’m just arguing that one wouldn’t actually be guilty. Using deadly force is either right or wrong, sin or not sin, in each situation in which it is used. I believe that if deadly force is used to accomplish the most loving thing possible in a given situation, it is the right thing to do, and is therefore not something for which we should be “guilty” or need “God’s mercy,” as you have suggested before.
Enjoy your trip this weekend!
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/31/2003 7:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Killing an enemy may be a lesser evil (i.e. ethically justifiable). But don’t call it loving. Legally justifiable behavior is not the same as loving action.
If we say that killing someone else to save ourself and/or others is a loving thing to do, then how can we be sure that someone who is trying to kill us isn’t really loving us? On what basis can we distinguish between actions intended to hurt us (destroy life) and actions intended to help us (increase life)?
If loving action can include action that destroys the life of a person Jesus sacrificed himself for, then the meaning of love seems incoherent. If I choose to destroy the life of my enemy rather than sacrifice my own, yet continue to call myself a follower of Jesus—who chose to sacrifice himself for people who were his enemies—I prove myself to be a hyprocrite.
How dare I shed the blood of someone Jesus shed his own blood to save? Jesus’ action proves the infinite worth of every enemy of God and man. So if I ever chose to kill, I would not consider myself a hero (even though this may be the case ethically) but I would seek God’s mercy.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/31/2003 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Killing an enemy may be a lesser evil (i.e. ethically justifiable). But don’t call it loving. Legally justifiable behavior is not the same as loving action.
Hi Electra,
This it seems to me is the very crux of the discussion--our definitions of love differ greatly.
quote:
If we say that killing someone else to save ourself and/or others is a loving thing to do, then how can we be sure that someone who is trying to kill us isn’t really loving us?
Because one example is self-defense or defending the innocent, while the other is *unjustified* aggression with murderous intent. It would appear that our definitions of justice also differ, if you truly think that there is no moral difference between self-defense/defense of the innocent (which is justified) and UNjustified aggression towards others with intent to murder.
quote:
If loving action can include action that destroys the life of a person Jesus sacrificed himself for, then the meaning of love seems incoherent.
Is Jesus (God) loving in all that He does? Did Jesus sacrifice himself for all? Will Jesus destroy all his enemies some day?
quote:
If I choose to destroy the life of my enemy rather than sacrifice my own, yet continue to call myself a follower of Jesus—who chose to sacrifice himself for people who were his enemies—I prove myself to be a hyprocrite.
Is God a hypocrite? Will not God destroy all evildoers in hell?
quote:
How dare I shed the blood of someone Jesus shed his own blood to save?
How dare God keep anyone out of heaven! Just because Jesus shed his blood for someone does not mean they are above the law, or that they can somehow be exempt from justice, not even the justice of God.
quote:
Jesus’ action proves the infinite worth of every enemy of God and man.
I've asked this question of you before, so I don't know if you'll really answer, but I must insist, "How can ALL people have INFINITE worth?" This implies an utter contradiction. Only God possesses infinite worth.
quote:
So if I ever chose to kill, I would not consider myself a hero (even though this may be the case ethically) but I would seek God’s mercy.
I would need to seek God's mercy if I stood by and let even a would-be murderer continue on his path of wickedness.
The example of Jesus allowing himself to be crucified is certainly an exception to the general rule, and of course, if I were facing actual persecution for Christ, this would be a very different thing than we have been discussing.
In light of your opinions on this subject, it would seem you may need to rewrite your quote of Dostoevsky to read, "Love in action is never a harsh and dreadful thing."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/01/2003 01:00:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/31/2003 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | John: This it seems to me is the very crux of the discussion--our definitions of love differ greatly.
Electra: What is your definition?
John: It would appear that our definitions of justice also differ, if you truly think that there is no moral difference between self-defense/defense of the innocent (which is justified) and UNjustified aggression towards others with intent to murder.
Electra: I agree that one killing is ethicially justifiable and another killing is ethically unjustifiable, so I don’t think the issue is our definitions of justice. My objection has to do with what is loving, not what is ethically/morally justifiable. Love is life-giving. Whether it is done in self-defense or cold-blooded murder, killing destroys life.
John: Is Jesus (God) loving in all that He does?
Electra: I believe that he is.
John: Did Jesus sacrifice himself for all?
Electra: I believe he did. Some Christians believe that Jesus only sacrificed himself for some people (individuals who were predestined to be elect).
John: Will Jesus destroy all his enemies some day?
Electra: I believe God claims the right to vengeance, and there will come a day when we receive justice or mercy.
John: Is God a hypocrite?
Electra: I don’t think so.
John: Will not God destroy all evildoers in hell?
Electra: That is up to God.
John: Just because Jesus shed his blood for someone does not mean they are above the law, or that they can somehow be exempt from justice, not even the justice of God.
Electra: I am not trying to argue that we should be exempt from justice. I am trying to argue that legal justification does not make something loving.
John: I've asked this question of you before, so I don't know if you'll really answer, but I must insist, "How can ALL people have INFINITE worth?" This implies an utter contradiction. Only God possesses infinite worth.
Electra: Something that is truly infinite can neither be subtracted from nor added to. Jesus shows that God has chosen to bestow infinite worth on each person—while we were enemies of God.
John: I would seek God's mercy if I stood by and let even a would-be murderer continue on his path of wickedness.
Electra: I would seek God’s mercy in that case as well. Note: I am not arguing for standing by and let would-be murderers continue on their paths of wickedness. I believe all sinners should be confronted about their sins and get right with God. I am arguing against killing people and calling it a loving thing to do to them.
John: I think you need to rewrite your quote of Dostoevsky to read, "Love in action is never a harsh and dreadful thing."
Electra: I like the quote exactly the way Dostoevsky wrote it. Here is how I understand it: Love in action takes harsh and dreadful things upon itself (by sacrificing our own life for others—whether they are our neighbors or enemies) rather than shoving them off on someone else (by taking others’ lives—whether in self-defense or cold-blooded murder).
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 5/31/2003 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast [from another thread]: The goal is to love one another, the goal is to have a positive or loving impact on others - "towards life".
Electra: How can killing my enemy have a positive or loving impact on him - "towards life"? What if I fail to successfully convince my enemy that I am killing him because I love him and I want to have a positive impact on him? If killing someone can somehow qualify as impacting them “towards life,” then it seems like any action can.
I don’t see how killing enemies fulfills Jesus’ command to “Love your enemies” whether it is considered a guide or a goal.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/1/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra
How can killing my enemy have a positive or loving impact on him - "towards life"? What if I fail to successfully convince my enemy that I am killing him because I love him and I want to have a positive impact on him? If killing someone can somehow qualify as impacting them “towards life,” then it seems like any action can.
I don’t see how killing enemies fulfills Jesus’ command to “Love your enemies” whether it is considered a guide or a goal.
Iconoclast
You make a very strong argument Electra.
I especially like how you are separating ethics (the guide) from love (the goal). Yes, we can be ethically justified in killing someone but are we really fully meeting the goal of loving them?
The only possibility I can see where this COULD be true is if Hitler is racing towards spiritual death (he is caught in the vortex of a spiritual black hole) and killing him could be construed as stopping or blunting his progress in that direction. To stop or blunt a direction towards death is to have a positive impact towards life.
Now, since we can not possibly know whether killing someone actually does this or not it seems to me that we could NEVER take this action purely out of a desire to love our specific enemy.
At the same time this does (or can if you agree to the possibility) leave open the possibility of being loving toward Hitler when you are killing him NOT out of love for him specifically (again impossible for us to decide) but love for all the others that he is in the process of murdering. In other words, love can be completely what you are living in and still take this action.
Question: do you think Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of some ethical demand or out of love? (NOT love for Hitler but love for all those he was murdering) Or, rather, is it POSSIBLE that Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of love or is this impossible in your view?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/01/2003 9:51:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/1/2003 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
My understanding is that agape = disinterested benevolence; IOW, unselfish goodwill. This is desiring and acting in keeping with the highest good of God and man. Strong's Lexicon defines agapao as "love in a social or moral sense."
It would appear to me that once again the primary difficulty we are having in communicating is in not clearly defining our terms, and most of all in the mistaken notion (pervasive on this discussion board) that love is somehow separate from ethics. If everything God does morally flows from his voluntary choice to love, then even destroying the wicked in hell must be motivated by love.
Many perhaps may misunderstand my position to be that of "pro-violence." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I simply believe that a person can be both an ethically consistent Christian and a police officer. If you can demonstrate how a police officer by definition promotes violence, then of course this part of my argument falls flat.
Jesus' death shows that God considers the salvation of all mankind to be of great worth (though not infinite, as that can only possibly apply to God himself). Simply put, your definition of love is completely impossible to apply. If one tries to apply it to one person, then by definition one has ascribed less than infinite worth to all others.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/01/2003 4:41:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 6/2/2003 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: quote:
At the same time this does (or can if you agree to the possibility) leave open the possibility of being loving toward Hitler when you are killing him NOT out of love for him specifically (again impossible for us to decide) but love for all the others that he is in the process of murdering. In other words, love can be completely what you are living in and still take this action.
Question: do you think Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of some ethical demand or out of love? (NOT love for Hitler but love for all those he was murdering) Or, rather, is it POSSIBLE that Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of love or is this impossible in your view?
Electra, this is also my question. This is the point I was trying to convey when I previously argued that we cannot make a decision about whether killing is necessary for love in some kind of "one-on-one" kind of way. That is, in deciding whether it is the most loving thing to do to kill Hitler, we cannot consider ONLY how loving our actions are to Hitler himself; we are also obligated to consider what the most loving thing to do for all those he is slaughtering. The world is full of complex and conflicting interests, and therefore, in determining what the most loving thing to do is in a given situation, I believe we are required to take all interests into account, not just the interest of the isolated individual whose life we are deciding whether to take.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/3/2003 2:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: At the same time this does (or can if you agree to the possibility) leave open the possibility of being loving toward Hitler when you are killing him NOT out of love for him specifically (again impossible for us to decide) but love for all the others that he is in the process of murdering.
Electra: How can I possibly be loving toward the one I kill without doing so out of love for him specifically? This seems like a contradiction.
Iconoclast: In other words, love can be completely what you are living in and still take this action.
Electra: How can love be completely what I am living in if I make any exceptions about who I love?
Iconoclast: Question: do you think Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of some ethical demand or out of love? (NOT love for Hitler but love for all those he was murdering) Or, rather, is it POSSIBLE that Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of love or is this impossible in your view?
Electra: I have granted all along that it may be possible to simultaneously love an enemy and kill an enemy, but I don’t see how. I think it is possible that Bonhoeffer decided to kill Hitler out of love for him. But I don’t think Bonhoeffer ever tried to claim this decision to kill was a loving thing to do. For example, in Ethics he writes, “When a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility…he imputes this guilt to himself and to no one else; he answers for it…Before other men the man of free responsibility is justified by necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience; but before God he hopes only for mercy.”
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/3/2003 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Brett:
quote:
The world is full of complex and conflicting interests, and therefore, in determining what the most loving thing to do is in a given situation, I believe we are required to take all interests into account, not just the interest of the isolated individual whose life we are deciding whether to take.
Electra: Yes, the world is full of complex and conflicting interests. Determining what course of action would bring about the greatest good by taking all interests into account is a worthy enterprise, but it is an ethical enterprise. It is a matter of abstraction, not relation. Love takes each interest into account as if it were the only interest. Love leaves the 99 behind.
Killing an enemy to protect ourselves is a basic human instinct. But I don’t see what is particularly Christian or loving about it. Christ calls us to love not only the ones we are most likely to love anyway, but also the one we would justifiably kill. I agree that this is a difficult call, and I doubt I could do it. But instead of trying to figure out how killing is somehow commensurate with loving, I think it is more honest and humble to just confess that I am not strong enough to love someone who would threaten me or my family. In my fear and wrath toward that person I would be tempted to kill him, and the law would permit me to do so. Whether or not love would is answered on the cross.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/3/2003 3:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast, Brett, and honorman,
Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The good of the whole is the realm of ethics, but love upholds the worth of each one. This worth is not relative to their relationship to me—e.g. my child is worth more than my enemy; but rather is relative to their relationship to God—e.g. Jesus died for each person so they could come to live in love with God and neighbor.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/3/2003 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | honorman: People who love us (family, wife, children) deserve more of our love than our enemies do.
Electra: How would you answer Jesus’ question: “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them” (Luke 6:32).
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 6/3/2003 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is one of the few places where Jesus refers to the sword: “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” (Matt. 10:34–36)
Cutting these ties is very painful. Jesus doesn’t shield us from this pain, but instead brings a sword. The purpose of this sword is not to protect our family against our enemy, but to make our enemy a member of our own household.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 06/03/2003 3:11:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/4/2003 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | The point that consistently seems to be missed is one that is implied by Electra. That is, God is the middle term of Christian Love. We all know that the Bible says that God is love, how can we have such extensive discussions about love and not retain God as the middle term?
This seems strange to me.
We do not love our wives or children more or less than our enemies except in sin. God does not show partiality and does not permit us to either. Now, we simply show that we are sinners to the extent that we demostrate these sorts of preferences. Jesus is no friend of earthly alliances (alliances, not responsibilities, those are all to be honored, to each what is due). There is only one master, God, there is only one kingdom to seek first, God's, there is only one who we can imitate who shows what love is, the crucified one. This is actually pretty clear but we'd rather deceive ourselves so that we can pretend that we are all in obedience rather than sin.
If you disagree, please do support your argument from the NT.
thanks,
Modes
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
Edited by - ModesofThought on 06/04/2003 10:17:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/4/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Iconoclast, Brett, and honorman,
Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The good of the whole is the realm of ethics, but love upholds the worth of each one. This worth is not relative to their relationship to me—e.g. my child is worth more than my enemy; but rather is relative to their relationship to God—e.g. Jesus died for each person so they could come to live in love with God and neighbor.
Iconoclast
Yes to each individual's worth is ontologically determined by God.
I don't agree that 'the good of the whole is the realm of ethics.' The dictionary says that ethics is "a set of principles of right conduct." From this definition I understand ethics to simply be a guide, a knowledge base or a map to help us free-will agents come to some agreements on how we are going to conduct our relationships. It is as true a guide for the 'whole' as it is for individuals. Most importantly, it is a map, it is not the territory. Ethics is a map. God's living will for us is the territory.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/05/2003 12:10:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/4/2003 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Iconoclast: In other words, love can be completely what you are living in and still take this action.
Electra: How can love be completely what I am living in if I make any exceptions about who I love?
Iconoclast
You are presupposing that taking this action is making an exception about who you love. You can be FOR someone and still determine that this action is best given the overall context. No action exists in isolation. Nor can we isolate any specific action after the fact and determine whether it is by itself 'life-affirming' or 'life-denying'. The very definition of life is about relationships. I think this is what honorman is getting at when he says there is a 'fourth' called community. I would simply add that we cannot make such discrete categorizations (i.e. God, ourself, the other, and community). It is really a 'fractal' sort of 'perspectival' chain of relationships where God is the very center and yet encompasses the whole. Maybe something like: Individual -> Couple -> conjugal family -> consanguine family -> town -> city -> county -> state -> nation -> God. Of course this set of sets of sets branches into a multitude of other groupings: Individual -> work unit -> department -> division -> company -> God. Couple -> small group -> church -> denomination -> Church -> God. And so on.
quote:
These two things are true of every living center:
1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.
"The Nature of Order - The Phenomenon of Life" - Christopher Alexander
To love is to take action that is 'Life-affirming'. But 'life' IS this web of mutually supporting relationships. When an individual starts destroying this web of relationships - this 'life' all around them then what is the 'life-affirming' thing to do? Certainly the goal is to influence the individual to freely choose to take 'life-affirming' action. And it MAY be that the most effective way to do this is to allow the individual to kill you when you have the power to stop them by killing them. However, it must be remembered that 'life' is this web of interrelationships. Allowing the individual to kill you may actually be the most INEFFECTIVE thing you could do because this might influence other individuals to believe that people will not fight back and therefore can be used like doormats and thus start behaving like the individual that killed you. The key issue is that our actions are not only affecting the current individual and situation but they are also influencing other individuals as to what they can expect to happen given some set of circumstances.
When someone is 'power-aroused' becoming a doormat usually feeds that power-arousal. It makes it worse. The criminal likes to target 'victims' - people who will behave like a doormat. This gives them confidence to attack their next victim. The ideal scenario when confronted with a 'power-aroused' individual - whether the head of another department in your company or some vicious criminal - is to use your own power to block them. NOT to crush them, but to block them and frustrate their power game IN ORDER that you can then back down from your power position and negotiate.
For me it comes down to this. In the situation where a vicious criminal is attacking and the only way I can stop him is to kill him, I believe it is God's will that I stop the vicious criminal. In the situation where the state or some 'principality' or some sanctioned group is taking evil action then I believe that it is God's will that I oppose them at risk to my own life without using violent means to attack them back. Why? Because that is the most powerful way to influence not only THAT group that is doing evil but also all the other folks who are needed to risk their own lives in opposing the stray group. This is the power of non-violent resistance - it is an extremely effective influence strategy.
Because life is a web of interrelationships of free-will agents a key aspect of loving others is influencing them to take life-affirming action. In the case of the vicious criminal by stopping them at risk to yourself using ultimately violent force as a last resort is part of an influence strategy to influence all other potential victims to NOT be doormats but to take action to stop that behavior.
Potential terrorists should now know that if they pull out a box cutter on an airplane everyone on that airplane will risk their own life to stop them - no matter what. This is a powerful influence that will hopefully prevent some terrorist from even trying that. If all violent criminals knew that to victimize someone meant a violent struggle to the death in order to carry out their victimization, there would be a lot less of that sort of thing.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 06/04/2003 11:42:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:40 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 |
|
|