 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JimmyGgp
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/13/2004 9:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all:
Been awhile since I've last posted, but I visit here often. I have been really thinking a lot about Greg's last four sermons, and they make a lot of sense. Our work, as Christians, must be underneath, on a person-to-person level, not at the governmental level. I have often thought that the state must first be just - leave it to us to be compassionate. Governments just don't seem to do compassion well.
Then I saw the pictures of Iraqi prisoners being sexually tortured by american solders, and I was outraged - Isn't America supposed to be a moral beacon in this world? I realize that we are far from perfect, but I still believe that if America ceased to exist, this world would be a dark place indeed - much darker than it already is. It really drove home Greg's point that EVERY system of government in this fallen world has some diabolic influence involved. I still believe that the U.S. is the greatest, most moral(on a policy level, anyway) nation on the planet, but sometimes, that's not saying much.
Then, we get the muslim zealots' "response" to Iraqi mistreatment: The brutal, horrific slaughter of Mark Berg, recorded on video for all to see. Mr. Berg was in Iraq to HELP, and all he got for his trouble was an agonizing death - having his head SAWED off with apperently dull blades while he screams until his vocal apparatus is damaged to the point of uselessness. I have seen the video of this atrocity, and it is profoundly affecting, to say the very least. It is enough to make one weep.
Over the past few days, I have watched the media coverage of the two events, and I am enraged. While every news report, every paper rallies around to decry american hypocrisy and inhumanity, as if sexual humiliation were the norm for prisoners held by the American military, on the Berg slaughter, they are relatively silent. While both of these act were evil, I cannot equate the morally. The humiliated Iraqis are STILL ALIVE!!!!!!! They will have an opportunity to heal, to see thier families, perhaps even enter a saving relationship with Jesus. Not so Mark Berg.
So I am mulling all this over, trying to process my anger, praying for the kind of love Jesus demonstrated with his life, and with his death, but also wondering if there comes a time to rise up and oppose evil. During my musings, it occured to me that even Jesus was not always the calm servant. Consider Mark 11:15-16:
"On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out all those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers, and the benches of those selling doves, and He would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
It seems to me that even Jesus came to a point where he needed to take rigorus, physical(dare I say violent?) action to oppose that which is wrong. Do these verses speak to us needing to oppose evil with an appropriate level of violence when nessessary? I am not at all sure, but it does give me pause. It makes me wonder how our leaders do it, especially Bush, who I have heard is Born-again. I don't know if I could send troops to die and to kill, knowing that, as a Christian, I need to love my enemies.
I am so angry with muslim zealotry right now. I know Christianity has been just as bad through the ages, but I see no moral equvalancy between Islam and Christianity in the present day. When some supposed Christian nutjob bombs an abortion clinic, I hear mainstream Christians denounce it categoricaly, as they should. When Muslim nutjobs fly planes into buildings, and slaughter innocents, I hear it is my country's fault for economic imerialsim, exporting our satanic culture, and supporting Israel.
A lot of this is just venting and trying to collect ond organize my thoughts, but I am curious about your responses. Is my thinking way off, or HAVE I RECIEVED A REVALATION FROM THE MOST HIGH GOD!?!?!?!?
I look forward to hearing from you all.
Jim
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/18/2004 1:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
The tit-for-tat game of the kingdoms of the world has gone on throughout history and will go on till the Lord returns. You hurt me, I hurt you back. You retaliate for your hurt, I retaliate for mine. The only way to win in this came is to utterly vanquish your opponent. Of course everyone feels righteous in their cause, otherwise they wouldn't kill and be killed for it.
We could here enter into a long and impossible discussion about this particular war against these particular "evil-doers." whose relatively better or worse, whose more justified and whose not, etc... Fine. I grant everyone's perspective at the outset. Bomb away in God's name and they'll bomb back, so bomb away some more and they'll... Its the way the world works.
BUT, Jesus offers those who will receive it an entirely different way of doing life. Its not a way to run a "power-over" kingdom. But it IS the way to live. LOVE your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Bless those who bomb you. Pray for those who cut your head off. Serve those who oppress you. OPT OUT of the tit-for-tat game.
I don't think we need worry that we'll have a shortage of people to do the necessary killing and retaliation for the cause of justice.
Greg
I agree with Dr. Boyd when he maintains that Christians don't bear the sword or have the right to use it on behalf of God, now. In the ultimate defense of the innocent, harmless, just and good, when a mob of evil sinners was about to take away and kill the sinnless one - Jesus told Peter to put away the sword. Jesus accepted the actions done to him by godless men. These men were government leaders God had given authority to torture and kill His own Son.
Nations and groups of people may defend themselves or intervene with the sword. However, they do not do so as Christians, but as men. When Christians attempt to bring the kingdom of God by their own sword we have a brutal travesty and the antithesis of what God has commanded us. This is one area in which Calvin unleashed untold misery and damage on our world in the name of God. There is no Christian army using real swords until the coming of Christ Himself. I think that it is close to blasphemy to claim this type of authority as men and as governments. We may kill and defend in the name of men and our governments, but the sword of God that will establish His kingdom in the temporal and civil world will be born by the Messiah.
There is a coming time in which the King will return and He will bear the sword and conquer all nations and end all injustice and judge rightly between all men. The benevolent despot, a truly righteous and loving King to rule the world with a rod of iron. Then we will have a true theocracy, without some created man or men claiming to be "theo." I am grateful that God has limited the religious governments in our era and that we have been mostly free of governments claiming to be "Christian" and enforcing their will on the world in the name of God. I am grateful that Dr. Boyd has no sword. I am also just as grateful that I don't. The only sword God has left us with until His coming is the sword of the gospel that is powerful for salvation and offends both Jew and Gentile. May God grant us the boldness to speak this gospel to all the world while we wait for the coming time of justice and righteous government under the King of Kings.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/18/2004 1:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GregBoyd
The tit-for-tat game of the kingdoms of the world has gone on throughout history and will go on till the Lord returns. You hurt me, I hurt you back. You retaliate for your hurt, I retaliate for mine. The only way to win in this came is to utterly vanquish your opponent. Of course everyone feels righteous in their cause, otherwise they wouldn't kill and be killed for it.
We could here enter into a long and impossible discussion about this particular war against these particular "evil-doers." whose relatively better or worse, whose more justified and whose not, etc... Fine. I grant everyone's perspective at the outset. Bomb away in God's name and they'll bomb back, so bomb away some more and they'll... Its the way the world works.
BUT, Jesus offers those who will receive it an entirely different way of doing life. Its not a way to run a "power-over" kingdom. But it IS the way to live. LOVE your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Bless those who bomb you. Pray for those who cut your head off. Serve those who oppress you. OPT OUT of the tit-for-tat game.
I don't think we need worry that we'll have a shortage of people to do the necessary killing and retaliation for the cause of justice.
Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Dr. Boyd when he maintains that Christians don't bear the sword or have the right to use it on behalf of God, now. In the ultimate defense of the innocent, harmless, just and good, when a mob of evil sinners was about to take away and kill the sinnless one - Jesus told Peter to put away the sword. Jesus accepted the actions done to him by godless men. These men were government leaders God had given authority to torture and kill His own Son.
Does that mean if we're drafted, we should refuse to fight? Or could we ethically respond to the draft as long as the claimed objective of the war was not "tit-for-tat?"
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 5/18/2004 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I listened to that sword and cross series and it confirmed much of what I've thought (you can't legislate morality) and I agree with it 99 44/100% but...
A case could be made for using governing bodies to accomplish some of God's work. Two cases come to mind, William Carey getting the British and Indian governments to stop the Suttee in India is one of them.
Abolitionists in the US and England getting the Atlantic slave trade stopped via their respective governments is another case.
If "power over" government is not an option for God, why do churches have 'governing bodies'???
Why has anyone been banned from this board?
Why was the rally for the homeless at the State Capitol? Were the rallyers trying to influence government into doing something???
What I came away with was, as a Christian individual, it's all right to rally for the homeless at the capitol, protest at an abortion clinic, pass legislation to prohibit Suttee, but the church as an 'institution' shouldn't be doing this.
So,
going to the Holy land as a witness -- GOOD
going to the Holy land as an army -- BAD
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/18/2004 5:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GregBoyd
The tit-for-tat game of the kingdoms of the world has gone on throughout history and will go on till the Lord returns. You hurt me, I hurt you back. You retaliate for your hurt, I retaliate for mine. The only way to win in this came is to utterly vanquish your opponent. Of course everyone feels righteous in their cause, otherwise they wouldn't kill and be killed for it.
We could here enter into a long and impossible discussion about this particular war against these particular "evil-doers." whose relatively better or worse, whose more justified and whose not, etc... Fine. I grant everyone's perspective at the outset. Bomb away in God's name and they'll bomb back, so bomb away some more and they'll... Its the way the world works.
BUT, Jesus offers those who will receive it an entirely different way of doing life. Its not a way to run a "power-over" kingdom. But it IS the way to live. LOVE your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Bless those who bomb you. Pray for those who cut your head off. Serve those who oppress you. OPT OUT of the tit-for-tat game.
I don't think we need worry that we'll have a shortage of people to do the necessary killing and retaliation for the cause of justice.
Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Dr. Boyd when he maintains that Christians don't bear the sword or have the right to use it on behalf of God, now. In the ultimate defense of the innocent, harmless, just and good, when a mob of evil sinners was about to take away and kill the sinnless one - Jesus told Peter to put away the sword. Jesus accepted the actions done to him by godless men. These men were government leaders God had given authority to torture and kill His own Son.
Does that mean if we're drafted, we should refuse to fight? Or could we ethically respond to the draft as long as the claimed objective of the war was not "tit-for-tat?"
Jef,
We are not drafted as Christians, but as citizens. God commands us to obey the authorities over us. If we feel that we cannot, in good conscience as Christians obey their commands, we have the biblical options to flee or to accept the consequences. I don't see that we have the oprion to rebel. John the Baptist does give words to the soldiers and he doesn't tell them not to fight, but to not exploit and abuse their authority. How this works in each individual's life reagrding the draft is to be seen in the individual. I don't see being a soldier as too much different than being a police officer or a security guard. They all may have to use lethal force to do their job.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/18/2004 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe Christians who do not fight against countries who do evil, who do not stop them with physical force, sin.
Spen, you cannot divorce our being a Christian from this world. When one is drafted, one is drafted as a Christian and their response should be as a Christian. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 5/18/2004 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
The above would be cases of Christians exerting INFLUENCE and PERSUASION, not coercion.
Christians exerting INFLUENCE and PERSUASION on the government to coercively end economic and cultural situations.
"coming over" force by proxy
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 5/18/2004 4:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Are you suggesting that as a Christian we should not vote? That as a Christian we should not express our concerns on political issues?
No, I'm not. I'm all for our participation in government. I think the coercive power of government can do good. But it's Christians participating in coercive methods by proxy. How were roads built? Land was bought from people whether they wanted to sell or not.
The income tax was a temporary measure to pay for the Civil War. Want to try NOT paying it?
conservative and liberal Christians participating in "power over" by proxy
Lobbying the government to force communities to build low income housing is probably a good thing BUT don't think you aren't using government's "power over" abilities.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JimmyGgp
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 5/19/2004 9:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the responses - and I apologize for getting Nicholas Berg's name wrong in my original post.
I guess I am still wondering how to interpret Jesus' actions in the temple. Here is one instance where He didn't turn the other cheek. Jesus didn't love them out of the temple, he forcibly removed them. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems to me that these verses speak of there being some justification for the physical opposition to evil. What do you folks think?
Thanks,
Jim | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/20/2004 1:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JimmyGgp
Thanks for the responses - and I apologize for getting Nicholas Berg's name wrong in my original post.
I guess I am still wondering how to interpret Jesus' actions in the temple. Here is one instance where He didn't turn the other cheek. Jesus didn't love them out of the temple, he forcibly removed them. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems to me that these verses speak of there being some justification for the physical opposition to evil. What do you folks think?
Thanks,
Jim
Jimmy,
I think that the answer to your question is given in the text. The most complete account from the synoptics is found in Matthew 21:12. The reason given in Mark and Luke is identical.
quote:
"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN."...Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’”
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
Jesus, quoting scripture, claims that the temple is His house. He is claiming deity. In the same passage He says that Jerusalem kills the prophets that He sends, an ominous forshadowing of what they will do to the great prophet. When He leaves the temple He claims that He is leaving it desolate. Why? God is actually leaving His house with the departure of Jesus. It hearkens back to the glory of God leaving the temple in Ezekiel 10:18. This documents the presence of God leaving the physical temple. In the narrative of Matthew, Jesus and the physical presence of God, never returns to the temple. The veil is torn in Matthew 27 and God no longer dwelt in the temple's Holy of Holies. The entire narrative is centered around the deity of Christ and the message of the gospel, with a new High Priest and new temple. This message is not about Jesus restoring civil justice now nor does it in the least way indicate that he delegated taking up the sword to cleanse His house. All we are told to do is to go and preach the gospel, not to beat people into conformity to its demands. We find a similar, but not identical, passage in John 2. quote:
And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.” The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
In both cases the issue is God's house. In the synoptics the verse used to defend His actions calls the temple HIS OWN house and He claims deity with His actions by claiming that He is God and that it is rightfully His house. In John, the justification is a verse that is more from the third person, "zeal for Your house," and Jesus is an agent acting on behalf of God. This is similar to the claims we see by Christians that want to take up God's sword for Him. The Jews asked for a sign that He had God's authority to do so. His answer was to destroy His body and in three days He would raise it up. There was an objective answer that was objectively and historically accomplished and verified by witnesses. This was no fictional event through which Jesus validated His claim to this authority. He gave objective proof through the Cross and His resurrection. If there are those that wish to take up God's sword on behalf of God now, we could ask the same question, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" It would seem that the answer that they give to take up God's sword directly needs to be consistent with the answer of Jesus. In Luke 9:54 we have Jesus responding directly to His disciples who wished to intervene on His behalf to punish those who wouldn't receive Him, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But He turned and rebuked them."
If this sounds strange or over stating it, look at Revelation 11 and two prophets that we know that God has promised are still coming. These prophets will actually weild the sword of God to/upon the nations directly. quote:
Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, “Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. “Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. “And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them.And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.
But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them. And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” Then they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies watched them.
One will not have to be a "mystic" to recognize these men or their authority. It won't be done through a "feeling or impression." They will objectively demonstrate that they do have the authority delegated to them from God because, "if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies...These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall...and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire." I find it interesting that the sign that Jesus gave to the Pharisees concerning having the authority to cleanse the temple is the same demonstrated here for these 2 prophets, "But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet."
Therefore, if someone claims the authority directly from God to take up the sword of God and force people in God's name to obey His Word, I think that the bar has been placed pretty high before we need to believe him. What is clear is that we are all to proclaim the message of the Gospel and to preach God's Word of salvation to all men. We have been commanded to do this and can go forward confidently knowing that we are doing the will of God as we preach teh message of repentance and believing in the work of Jesus on teh Cross. I would be extremly cautious about going beyond this and enforcing the Word of God with the sword in His name. Claiming the delegated authority to do this seems to need objective proof beyond ones' subjective feelings.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 5/20/2004 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JimmyGgp
Thanks for the responses - and I apologize for getting Nicholas Berg's name wrong in my original post.
I guess I am still wondering how to interpret Jesus' actions in the temple. Here is one instance where He didn't turn the other cheek. Jesus didn't love them out of the temple, he forcibly removed them. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems to me that these verses speak of there being some justification for the physical opposition to evil. What do you folks think?
Thanks,
Jim
Hi,
I confess. I haven't been watching the news at all lately, but have heard. I believe that most of us are becoming desensitized to violence, so it is encouraging to hear that people are outraged, both at the treatment of the Iraqi soldiers and at the treatment of Nicolaus Bergman. Both were evil, horrific. A friend and I were walking yesterday and talking about evil and how it objectifies people.
The "temple scene" used to trouble me greatly. I grew up with a lot of anger, so it was hard for me to accept that Jesus, my gentle shepherd, could explode with such anger. Now I see it differently. Something that changed that for me was in the verses previous where scripture tells us that Jesus sat down and made a whip (which he used in the temple). I realized then that this was not explosive anger or violence. It was planned, "measured," deliberate, purposeful. It was anger with a mission. I believe Jesus's mission is always to heal, to restore, to transform. So, looking at it in that light changes everything, for me.
I have no doubt He was talking to the Father while he was making that whip.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:44 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 |
|
|