hey guys. 

i haven't been to this thread (or this site actually) in a while, but i read a few of the latests posts just to get an idea of what you're talking about and i have the following question: is not the verses in question (mt 5.38-48) speaking more of denying one's own rights in favour of anothers' rather than a blanket non-resistence?  it seems to me it's about self-sacrifice and allowing yourself to experience pain or lacking rather than, say, in the alcohol example, not resisting in any capacity someone's desire to hurt themselves.  it seems to me that ultimately, you would have to, as sahid says, allow the person to hurt himself becuz it is his decision, but initially, i would say you could "resist," in a sense, for a time.  perhaps resist as used in this passage does not mean resist in all of its meanings? 

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/24/2005 5:02:07 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/1/2005 6:40:04 AM (GMT-5)

1. Love the Lord - unqualified
2. Love your neighbor - unqualified
   *I believe these sum up everything.  They don't properly belong in the rest of the list, since they summarize the rest of the list.*
3. Do not resist an evil person - unless doing so breaks the first two commandments; no pretending we are responsible for the future free actions of others
4. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you - unqualified
5. Beware of practicing your righteousness before men - unqualified
6. Pray then in this way - unqualified

If 4-6 could somehow be practiced in a way that conflicts with 1 or 2, then I would have the same qualification.  But I can't think of a way that this would be possible.

Jeff:  In other words, isn't "give to him who asks" just one instance of how we "Love the Lord?"

Zach:  Yes it is.  But to make this work for you, you need examples of other instances that conflict with this.  Then I can give further qualifications.  Then we can argue about whether those qualifications are appropriate.

Jeff:  One more question. Do you consider "whatsoever you would that men do unto you, do ye also to them" an absolute?

Zach:  I get the feeling you are trying to trap me into applying 'absolute' to this passage.  So first I'll ask, "What do you mean by absolute?"  I don't think I was originally using it the way that it is being used now.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/1/2005 9:06:50 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/1/2005 12:56:03 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/1/2005 10:07:21 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/2/2005 9:22:18 PM (GMT-5)

Three main things:

1. You talked about my position making no common sense.  Apparently Jesus had even less common sense that I.  He didn't just let everyone take his physical goods; he let them take his life.  How stupid!  If he had common sense (and legions of angel protecting him), he wouldn't just go get himself killed.  But remember Abraham?  He had faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead.  By taking Isaac to be sacrifice he showed an astounding lack of common sense.  But that's just from a human point of view.  You see, Abraham believed in God.  He believed he had a covenant and a promise with God.  That changes things.  Same with Jesus.  He didn't have to grasp tightly to his own life, because he had placed his life in the faithful hands of the Father.  If the Father allows him to die, Jesus still doesn't need to lose faith.  Hopefully, it's the same with me.  If I willingly lay down my possesions, it's not the end of the world. It may look to you like I have no common sense, but I believe I have a covenant and a promise with God, so what looks stupid to you makes perfect sense to me.  If God tells me not to resist you, I don't have to worry about my own butt.  I've committed my butt to God and now it's his job to watch out for it.
2. I've been wondering the past few days where you got the idea that I said I needed to give up my "basic" goods, but now I see.  I was talking about things that are basically good earlier, things like sharing, loving, forgiving...  These things are basically good.  I could conceivably share in a bad way though.  I could share poison with someone who didn't know what I was doing.  That's bad sharing, but it's not really sharing at all.  The word "share" usually implies the sharing of something good.  So when I talk about things that are basically good, I'm not using "basic" in the sense of "necessary for my survival."  I'm not saying that the Bible explicitly says to give away essentials only, but I think that's what you read me to mean.  Look back and read it; I think you'll find that when I talked about basic good things I was talking about the actions like sharing.  I wasn't saying that we must share ONLY things that are essential to our existence.  I do believe those things should be shared (since of course the only thing essential to existence is God and there's no running out of him), but not to the exclusion of other things.
3. I don't know how to answer your HOW question in a way that will satisfy you.  (Quote to me the question you think I'm dancing around, so I know exactly what you're talking about.)  HOW do you qualify your reading of the scripture?  Not WHAT do you qualify, but HOW do you justify doing it?  Maybe if you answer that, I can understand what you are looking for.  When I interpret scripture, I try to see what the original meaning was, I try to reconcile the passage to others, and I try to see what it means to me today without perverting the original meaning.  I don't know how to answer HOW with much more depth.  But I don't see what problem you could have with this approach.  To apply it specifically, Jesus says don't resist an evil man.  Then you ask for all my possesions, just to prove a point.  How is the application of Jesus' teaching not crystal clear?  To "not resist" you doesn't not conflict with any scripture as far as I can tell.  The only thing it conflicts with is what you called "common sense."  I'm sorry, but screw common sense.  Common sense is what millions of Germans used to justify genocide.  Common sense told us to sell mustard gas to Saddam because he was the enemy of our enemy.  Common sense is the suspension of my reason in favor of conformity to the herd.  Jesus conflicts with common sense at this point.  We have to choose who will be our lord:  Jesus or the blind guides/sheep who surround us.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/3/2005 10:16:19 AM (GMT-5)

Zach:  He didn't just let everyone take his physical goods; he let them take his life.  How stupid!  If he had common sense (and legions of angel protecting him), he wouldn't just go get himself killed.  But remember Abraham?  He had faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead.  By taking Isaac to be sacrifice he showed an astounding lack of common sense.  But that's just from a human point of view.  You see, Abraham believed in God.  He believed he had a covenant and a promise with God.  That changes things.  Same with Jesus.  He didn't have to grasp tightly to his own life, because he had placed his life in the faithful hands of the Father.  If the Father allows him to die, Jesus still doesn't need to lose faith.  Hopefully, it's the same with me.  If I willingly lay down my possesions, it's not the end of the world.

Jeff:  What I meant was "contrary to" common sense.  Many things, like calculus, are not common-sensical, but calculus is ROOTED in common sense.  With that clarification, let me say that I agree with every main point you've made above, except that obeying the creator, for whom all things exist, is not "contrary to" common sense.  It is quintessentially rooted in common sense.  My point was that "love thy neighbor as thyself" seems, to me at least, to suggest that there is a legitimate way to love oneself and that THAT SELF LOVE is the measure of how you love your fellow man, ethically.  But if GOD says burn in a furnace rather than bow down to an idol, then burn in a furnace, by all means.  But that is the FIRST and GREATEST commandment.  It trumps ALL others.  So, if someone had a gun to my families head and said he would kill them if I didn't deny Christ, I would not deny Christ, come what may.  But if a Nazi asked me if I was harboring Jews, I don't think it would necessarily be wrong to deceive them.  The first case is based on the Greatest commandment.  The second case is based on the second greatest commandment.

Zach:  I've been wondering the past few days where you got the idea that I said I needed to give up my "basic" goods, but now I see.  I was talking about things that are basically good earlier, things like sharing, loving, forgiving...  These things are basically good.  I could conceivably share in a bad way though.  I could share poison with someone who didn't know what I was doing.  That's bad sharing, but it's not really sharing at all.  The word "share" usually implies the sharing of something good.  So when I talk about things that are basically good, I'm not using "basic" in the sense of "necessary for my survival."  I'm not saying that the Bible explicitly says to give away essentials only, but I think that's what you read me to mean.  Look back and read it; I think you'll find that when I talked about basic good things I was talking about the actions like sharing.  I wasn't saying that we must share ONLY things that are essential to our existence.  I do believe those things should be shared...

Jeff:  My point is this.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  I, personally, would NOT, agree in my sober mind (which is what should count in this consideration) to have someone share a gun or a shovel (or any other "weapon") with me in the case that I had so lost my senses that I was contemplating murder.  Moreover, if I was the intended victim, I would not want the "sharer" to share the weapon.  Hence, the golden rule, to me, clearly implies that I SHOULD NOT share a "weapon" or the means to acquire one with a professed would-be murderer.  The case of the guy shooting the other because of the "hill" is not relevant in these cases.  No one's life is at stake if I don't give the shovel to the murderer at the time he asks for it.  That decision can wait until weightier issues have been determined.  That's judgement, alright, but it doesn't take omniscience or even great intellectual skill.  When you are using lethal force, as in the "hill" example, the bar is MUCH higher - maybe INFINITELY higher.

Zach:  When I interpret scripture, I try to see what the original meaning was, I try to reconcile the passage to others, and I try to see what it means to me today without perverting the original meaning.  I don't know how to answer HOW with much more depth.

Jeff:  I pretty much agree.  But when a passage becomes so problematic by normal attempts to construe language, or when I have to assume that significant portions of scriptural passages are just plain false by any reasonable standard of language construction, at that point I have to be the JUDGE of scripture rather than the other way around.  At that point, scripture is not relevant - my own judgement is.  And at that point, arguments should no longer be based on scripture, by me, since I don't believe they are paramount.  For THAT is what frustrates an opponent.  But you and I BOTH agree that some qualifications are necessary to make sense of some of the more extreme language of Christ, so we can still have a discussion about it.  But BECAUSE that extreme language requires qualification, it is obligatory to know WHAT criteria is legitimate to use to determine HOW to qualify it.  I see the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments as THE fundamental qualifiers, along with the rest of normative scripture which is non-fundamental "commentary" on those two commandments.  So, for me, it is fair to ask WHAT does self-love entail since it is part and parcel of the 2nd greatest commandment.  I need to KNOW that before I can properly qualify "give to him who asks."  Likewise, for me, it is fair to see Paul's claim that parents ought to lay up for their children as a qualifier on how much, why, and when to give to him who asks, etc.  And there are other similar "commentary" passages that would count as qualifiers for me.  Paul says give to him who needeth.  If I'm aware of someone in need who hasn't asked, I give to him preferentially to the one who doesn't need but asks.  And so on...

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/3/2005 9:58:08 PM (GMT-5)

1. It's not biblical - Such arguments almost always fall back onto some appeal to an argument stopper (it's obvious, it's common sense).  If you know of a scriptural basis for such a belief, then let me see it.  So far I don't know of one.
2. It claims superhuman knowledge - You must be certain that the sin you commit will prevent a "greater" sin.  Some will say this is too great a standard.  Instead, you must only be "reasonably certain," whatever that means.  This term (and its equivalents) is wonderfully subjective and therefore effectively meaningless.  To Peter the cross was unreasonable.  To Jesus it made perfect sense.  We can argue in circles forever about whether we can be "reasonably certain" that the hypothetical Nazi will kill.  I say the knowledge needed is only available, if at all, to God.  You can say, "Is not," and I can say, "Is so."
3. In this hypothetical situation our moral qualms do not result in someone's death.  We don't say that the pilots on 9-11 committed an unintentional sin by facilitating the attack.  We don't blame Jackson's mother for the Indian genocide; we blame him.  The biblical account doesn't even blame God for Pharaoh harming the Israelites.  God allowed the persecution and knew perfectly well that Pharaoh would continue his brutality.  If you would blame me for giving a gun to a man who promised murder, you should also blame God who was more certain of a much wider scope of destruction.  The God you worship is a God who facilitates very evil deeds.  Deeds much worse than one man killing one woman.

Jeff:  I, personally, would NOT, agree in my sober mind (which is what should count in this consideration) to have someone share a gun or a shovel (or any other "weapon") with me in the case that I had so lost my senses that I was contemplating murder.

Zach:  Wait a second.  You've changed the example.  Are we talking about a crazy murderer or just a sane murderer?  Your earlier case was a man saying, "Hey Zach, I need to buy a gun to kill my wife, so would you share about $100 of your spare cash with me?"  Your current "crazy man" hypothetical situation introduces an entirely different variable.  I very well may see a reason not to share in that circumstance.  I haven't though about it in enough detail.  I thought we were assuming that we were dealing with sane people here.  If you want to go on this tangent, I guess we could, but I see this as a peripheral issue that has little or no bearing on the main topic of conversation.  Honestly, you appear to be grasping at straws.  New variables might also come into play if aliens landed or if we deal with people with multiple personalities or if we all lost our memories every five minutes.  These circumstance can be discussed, but they don't matter all that much to what we've been talking about.  So, I guess we can talk about it, but I really don't feel qualified to even informally discuss the ethics of insanity.

Jeff:  Moreover, if I was the intended victim, I would not want the "sharer" to share the weapon.  Hence, the golden rule, to me, clearly implies that I SHOULD NOT share a "weapon" or the means to acquire one with a professed would-be murderer.

Zach:  It may "clearly" imply all kinds of things to you, but there is no logical implication.  I can say it clearly implies that the sun is blue, with as much reasonableness.

Jeff:  The case of the guy shooting the other because of the "hill" is not relevant in these cases.  No one's life is at stake if I don't give the shovel to the murderer at the time he asks for it.  That decision can wait until weightier issues have been determined.  That's judgement, alright, but it doesn't take omniscience or even great intellectual skill.  When you are using lethal force, as in the "hill" example, the bar is MUCH higher - maybe INFINITELY higher.

Zach:  I disagree.  In the rifle story the main character commits a sin to stop a bigger sin, but in fact he is only gambling because he doesn't know the circumstances.  Whether the main character's sin is murder or littering isn't the point.  He commits a relatively small sin to stop a bigger sin.  This applies just fine.  You would refuse to share (a small sin) in order to stop a bigger sin (murder), when in fact you don't know that murder will happen.  You may "believe" it will happen, but your level of belief doesn't make it true.  If it did, you would be sinning to hold such belief in the first place.  You may say you are "reasonably confident" that the man will murder, but your confidence is based on the moral integrity of a man who says he is about to murder.  There are plenty of things that you could do that are more effective in preventing a murder than withholding a weapon.  You think he can't find another weapon?  You can tell everyone what he's said.  You can call his wife to tell her to hide.  You can appeal to the man's own conscience.  Withholding one weapon is at best a drop (and at worst additional frustration for the man) in the preventative bucket.

If you want to apply it wide scale, look at WWII.  Compare Dresden (or any other "justified" violence) and Le Chambon.  Not only is non-violence the ethical thing to do, it also saves more lives.

Jeff:  But when a passage becomes so problematic by normal attempts to construe language, or when I have to assume that significant portions of scriptural passages are just plain false by any reasonable standard of language construction, at that point I have to be the JUDGE of scripture rather than the other way around.

Zach:  Ok, where have I done this?

Jeff:  I see the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments as THE fundamental qualifiers, along with the rest of normative scripture which is non-fundamental "commentary" on those two commandments.

Zach:  I as well.  But I don't see how showing favoritism to assumed future victims has anything to do with the first or second commandments.  You claim it's a clear implication, but you need more than a conversation stopper to convince me.  Saying that something is "clear" without backing the claim up has been the justification for some of the worst examples of inhumanity.  It was "clear" to the Germans that Jews deserved to die.  If I agree with your (lack of) reasoning here, I must also agree with Hitler's, because they are the same.

Jeff:  So, for me, it is fair to ask WHAT does self-love entail since it is part and parcel of the 2nd greatest commandment.  I need to KNOW that before I can properly qualify "give to him who asks."

Zach:  Sure it's fair.  Let's see, who is the perfect example of self-love?  How about Jesus?  And what did he do?  He put himself in harm's way in a way which endangered his friends and ultimately his entire race.  There are no clear-cut good guys, bad guys, and victims.  One remarkable thing about Jesus was that he loved his enemies.  Not "loved his enemies then forcefully stopped them from hurting others whenever he had the chance."  Self-love that is not other-oriented (even enemy-oriented) is not really self-love.  By seeking my own security I am hating myself, because I am unable to save myself.  We must seek first the kingdom and its justice.  That is the only way we will have what we need, and that is the way to best love onesself.

Jeff:  Likewise, for me, it is fair to see Paul's claim that parents ought to lay up for their children as a qualifier on how much, why, and when to give to him who asks, etc.  And there are other similar "commentary" passages that would count as qualifiers for me.  Paul says give to him who needeth.  If I'm aware of someone in need who hasn't asked, I give to him preferentially to the one who doesn't need but asks.  And so on...

Zach:  Woah!  Where does Paul say that!?  Is this eisegesis or what?  I mean, maybe I missed something, but what Bible are you reading?  Both the "parents ought to lay up..." and the "give to him preferentially..." are your ideas, not Paul's.  If you can show me to be wrong, go ahead, but I don't see that at all.  Did you come up with this or did you read it somewhere?

If this is how you read scripture, then we might as well give up talking, because my hermeneutic is so different from yours it's like I'm reading a different Bible.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/4/2005 12:14:51 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff:  I'm not absolutely sure, but I have more confidence in that view than the other, and anything not of faith is sin.  My point was to show the difference in the way we determine what suffering for righteousness sake means.  My method begins with the hierarchy above.  If God gives a clear command, you do it, come what may.  That's what Christ did.  But Christ ALSO said that the Sabbath law was not to trump the well-being of an ox or a son of Abraham.  In other words, I'm trying to apply Christ's hierarchical way of looking at things.  And, yes, it does take judgement.  But so does the decision to pluck your eye out.  Do we pluck our eye out at any conceivable interpretation of that passage?  Is there even a conceivable application of that passage?  If so, what is it?  And how do you know?   If not, how do you know that?  Isn't some kind of judgement inevitable?  Why do you always act like I alone apply judgement?  You do, too, in your exegesis. 

Zach:  It's not biblical - Such arguments almost always fall back onto some appeal to an argument stopper (it's obvious, it's common sense).  If you know of a scriptural basis for such a belief, then let me see it.  So far I don't know of one.

Jeff:  Paul says to speak truth to our neighbor, "for we are members one of another."  The command is 1) conditioned by the FOR clause and 2) seems to apply to other believers.  Hence, it doesn't seem to be absolute.  It seems to be rooted in what is in the best interest of others (like Christ's interpretation of the sabbath command).  If I run away from someone trying to kill me, is it OK to try to "fake him out" by dodging like a football player to gain an advantage in escape?  David, too, if I remember correctly, once acted like a mad man to deceive his enemies so they wouldn't kill him.  I don't see why that would be wrong, but it is a kind of deception.  So deception with words may be no different in principle in those extreme cases where telling the truth to another profits neither him or anyone else.  Granted, neither I nor David is omniscient, but I still don't think God condemned him for it.  Again, it is what I think TODAY.  I used to think the way you do until I saw how Christ conditioned Torah laws by the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments.

Zach:  It claims superhuman knowledge - You must be certain that the sin you commit will prevent a "greater" sin.

Jeff:  I agree that it is never right to sin, period.  But Christ indicated that it was not a sin for a Jew to get his ox out of the ditch, even though the verse didn't explicitly say that.

Zach:  In this hypothetical situation our moral qualms do not result in someone's death.

Jeff:  Granted.  I agree with you that consequences never justify sin.  But it seems that the consequences to the poor ox was relevant to the judgement of how to apply verses.  How else can you explain Christ's comments about the ox on the sabbath?

Jeff:  I, personally, would NOT, agree in my sober mind (which is what should count in this consideration) to have someone share a gun or a shovel (or any other "weapon") with me in the case that I had so lost my senses that I was contemplating murder.

Zach:  Wait a second.  You've changed the example.  Are we talking about a crazy murderer or just a sane murderer?

Jeff:  No, I was trying to show how I think the "AS THYSELF" applies in "love thy neighbor AS THYSELF."  Maybe I'm wrong, but nothing else makes sense to me.  What does that clause mean to you?

Zach:  Your earlier case was a man saying, "Hey Zach, I need to buy a gun to kill my wife, so would you share about $100 of your spare cash with me?"  Your current "crazy man" hypothetical situation introduces an entirely different variable.  I very well may see a reason not to share in that circumstance.  I haven't though about it in enough detail.  I thought we were assuming that we were dealing with sane people here.  If you want to go on this tangent, I guess we could, but I see this as a peripheral issue that has little or no bearing on the main topic of conversation.

Jeff:  OK, so detail matters.  That's what I'm saying.  In the moment you have to weigh and ask "is it "sane" to want to murder one's wife?"  Isn't such a desire, shamelessly confessed to another, indicative of one whose adrenal glands are on overload?  OK, maybe insane is hyperbole.  But he's at least not in his most objective frame of mind.  "Man's wrath does not work out God's righteousness."  So do I want my neighbor to accomodate me when I'm on an adrenal gland overload, or try to calm me down and defuse the situation?

Zach:  Honestly, you appear to be grasping at straws.

Jeff:  Only if confessing a desire to murder one's wife is more probably indicative of what the man would think is his best interest EVEN if he were in a less volatile state.  Many a murderer regrets his actions.

Jeff:  Moreover, if I was the intended victim, I would not want the "sharer" to share the weapon.  Hence, the golden rule, to me, clearly implies that I SHOULD NOT share a "weapon" or the means to acquire one with a professed would-be murderer.

Zach:  It may "clearly" imply all kinds of things to you, but there is no logical implication.  I can say it clearly implies that the sun is blue, with as much reasonableness.

Jeff:  No.  GIVEN what self-love means TO ME, it follows.  I may be wrong, but I'm just trying to tell you HOW I think about these things.  The ox and the whole bit.

Zach:  I disagree.  In the rifle story the main character commits a sin to stop a bigger sin, but in fact he is only gambling because he doesn't know the circumstances. 

Jeff:  Is gambling with lethal force ethical?  I think not.  How you can compare that to postponing helping an angry man obtain a gun is beyond me.  What's the gamble in the latter?  You, yourself, said you weren't sure it was a good idea to even have a gun in the city.

Zach:  You would refuse to share (a small sin) in order to stop a bigger sin (murder), when in fact you don't know that murder will happen.  You may "believe" it will happen, but your level of belief doesn't make it true.  If it did, you would be sinning to hold such belief in the first place.  You may say you are "reasonably confident" that the man will murder, but your confidence is based on the moral integrity of a man who says he is about to murder.

Jeff:  I was explaining WHY I don't think postponing giving in some cases IS a sin.  I realize YOU think it is a sin.  We're not arguing that anymore.  We're supposedly trying to figure out HOW we get to our view of what sin is.  So again, HOW do you know to qualify "give to him who asks" ONLY in the way you do?  HOW do you know other qualifications might not be appropriate in certain situations?

Zach:  There are plenty of things that you could do that are more effective in preventing a murder than withholding a weapon.  You think he can't find another weapon?  You can tell everyone what he's said.  You can call his wife to tell her to hide.  You can appeal to the man's own conscience.  Withholding one weapon is at best a drop (and at worst additional frustration for the man) in the preventative bucket.

Jeff:  Absolutely!  But why is postponing so bad in these situations.  It is just ONE MORE way to contribute to the effort of being "effective in preventing a murder."

Zach:  Not only is non-violence the ethical thing to do, it also saves more lives.

Jeff:  It may very well be that if the state used no violence, the world would be a better place.  But wouldn't that make everything Paul says in Rom. 13 about the "authorities" unintelligible?  His whole argument seems to be that the state is God's minister unto GOOD because of their use of the sword.

Jeff:  But when a passage becomes so problematic by normal attempts to construe language, or when I have to assume that significant portions of scriptural passages are just plain false by any reasonable standard of language construction, at that point I have to be the JUDGE of scripture rather than the other way around.

Zach:  Ok, where have I done this?

Jeff:  As I've said above, your view of Rom. 13 seems to be the opposite of Paul's argument.  You also said that the OT is inconsistent on vengeance.  And I'm pretty sure you told Heather that you think that God didn't really command the Israelites to kill the Caananites.  If not, then what do those verses mean?

Jeff:  So, for me, it is fair to ask WHAT does self-love entail since it is part and parcel of the 2nd greatest commandment.  I need to KNOW that before I can properly qualify "give to him who asks."

Zach:  Sure it's fair.  Let's see, who is the perfect example of self-love?  How about Jesus?  And what did he do? 

Jeff:  So the Israelites were supposed to wait until Christ to have any idea how to apply that verse?  Christ did what he did as obedience to direct commands of God.  We should do the same.  But where does it say get your ox out of the ditch on the sabbath?  Some things really are just evident from the very idea of what benevolence means.

Jeff:  Likewise, for me, it is fair to see Paul's claim that parents ought to lay up for their children as a qualifier on how much, why, and when to give to him who asks, etc.  And there are other similar "commentary" passages that would count as qualifiers for me.  Paul says give to him who needeth.  If I'm aware of someone in need who hasn't asked, I give to him preferentially to the one who doesn't need but asks.  And so on...

Zach:  Woah!  Where does Paul say that!? 

Jeff:  2 Cor. 12:14.

Zach:  "give to him preferentially..." are your ideas, not Paul's.

Jeff:  Yeah.  That's the whole point.  I'm showing you HOW I try to sort this stuff out.  So if you have $100, there's a needy person you just became aware of and his rich neighbor asks you for $100, what do you do?  You have $100 dollars, you have 5 dependents, and a rich person asks you for $100, what do you do?  Your turn to answer some questions.  Does "give to him who asks" trump "take care of your own."  Does "give to him who asks" trump give to him who needeth?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/4/2005 9:18:41 PM (GMT-5)

1. God created things good.  God had the plain of creation existing in unity with the creator.
2. Sin happened.  Sin can be described as disunity and perversion.  The creation forcefully takes it upon itself to reorder things in its own way.
3. Despite this, God still desires unity.
4. God's way, as revealed in Jesus, to regain unity is not the sinful way of forceful reordering but of loving, self-giving, creative persuasion.
5. The Christian is one who renounces the world's forceful reordering in favor of Christ's loving, self-giving, creative persuasion.

This is a working list; it's not set in stone.  The language may not be as accurate as possible and I'm sure I've missed things, but this is the basic outline.  I personally think this outline coincides with the New Testament as it was intended to be read.

Zach:  Woah!  Where does Paul say that!? 

Jeff:  2 Cor. 12:14.

Zach:  "give to him preferentially..." are your ideas, not Paul's.

Jeff:  Yeah.  That's the whole point.  I'm showing you HOW I try to sort this stuff out.  So if you have $100, there's a needy person you just became aware of and his rich neighbor asks you for $100, what do you do?  You have $100 dollars, you have 5 dependents, and a rich person asks you for $100, what do you do?  Your turn to answer some questions.  Does "give to him who asks" trump "take care of your own."  Does "give to him who asks" trump give to him who needeth?

Zach:  You also might want to re-read 2 Cor 12:14 looking for what is said and what you have added to it.

Zach:  It seems to me you are making tons of unfounded assumptions.

Jeff:  You once told me you were not a "foundationalist."  What, then, should my beliefs be founded upon?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/5/2005 8:53:18 PM (GMT-5)

Paul:   But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. ¹³Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? ¹⁴In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Jeff:  Compare "we did not use this right" to vv. 9:3-6.  Isn't Paul saying, by v. 14, that he and Barnabas had the SAME right that Peter and the others had to "forbear working?"  Doesn't that imply that Paul would NOT have been acting contrary to Christ's command (v.14) had he not worked?  Do not vv. 15-23 show that Paul's argument is made to demonstrate that he did what he did for reward and NOT obligation?  The idea of "loop-hole" only makes sense if Paul was claiming that he was obligated to work.  But the text in question seems to argue the opposite of that.

Zach:  I am not a foundationalist in the technical epistemological sense.  But after (irrationally) choosing to believe in the reality of perception, certain other things follow.

Jeff:  OK, but how does the proper "foundation" for ethical thought follow from perception?

Zach:  Your ox analogy makes no sense to me.  You were talking about a hierarchy of laws.  Then you gave the ox thing as an example.  In order to make it have any sense in this discussion, you need to assume that rescuing an ox was against the Law.

Jeff:  The sabbath law said "do NO work."  I.e., they were to rest instead of doing the work like they did during the rest of the week.  Getting an ox out of the ditch is NOT resting - it is working.  When a physician "worked" on the sabbath to "heal" or when a Jew "worked" on the sabbath to get his "ox out of the ditch" they were technically contradicting the grammar of the sabbath law, but these were seen as exceptions because man was not made for the sabbath - but the sabbath for man.  I.e., the sabbath was for good.  THAT WAS the principle that conditioned the proper understanding of exceptions.  When the harm experienced from refusing to work on the sabbath by man (or even beast) out-weighed the good that one could reasonably experience from resting, that counted as a legitimate exception to the "do NO work" clause.  I.e., the need of the ox "trumped" what would have, otherwise, been an obligation to do "no work."

This is EXACTLY how I see the "give to him who asks" command.  That phrase was purposefully given in an extreme form which necessarily requires qualification.  It was made that way, just like the "do NO work" clause to emphasize the importance of a principle.  But that principle doesn't require unconditional obedience with no regard to the GOOD which is the OBJECT of the principle.  So if getting an ox out of the ditch was a legitimate exception to the "do NO work" clause, I see "provide for your own (dependents)" as a legitimate exception to "give to him who asks."  The object of both commands is a GOOD.  But giving to a selfish, rich person MERELY because he asks, when it requires me to abrogate my duty to provide for my dependents, seems to be wrong - in the same way that refusing to work on the sabbath to save a man is wrong, for the rich man doesn't even have a need. 

If you see giving to a selfish, rich person who asks as more obligatory than providing food for your dependents, I want to know how you know that?  You have already conceded that "give to him who asks" is NOT absolute.  So how do you know we are not to qualify it in the same manner that the Jews were to qualify the "do NO work" clause in the sabbath law?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/7/2005 10:43:28 AM (GMT-5)