Sparknheart, your criticism is so broad that I don't know what to do with it.  You tell me to be careful to be both truthful and graceful, but you admit that my position is both truthful and graceful.  It's like me warning you to use good spelling when you haven't misspelled anything.  If something I've said doesn't line up with truth, show me how.  Same with grace.  I do acknowledge that grace and truth are important standards to follow.  I just don't know how you think I've missed them.

I’m not trying to prove you’re wrong, I’m attempting to have you look at the verse (and beyond) with a fuller perspective, one that includes both love AND truth, realizing they can’t be separated at the expense of each other, that they bleed over into each other. 

Ok, love and truth.  Again, how have I missed it?  I think my position is both loving and truthful.  The argument that it is unloving to future victims is a pertinent one, but first we must ask whether or not it makes sense for guilt to be passed on to those who allow or facilitate evil.  Since God is the ultimate allower and facilitator of evil, I don't see how we can ascribe guilt to such actions.

I’m not questioning your truthfulness, quite the contrary Sahid.  But, people can drift into darkness truly believing they are in the light.

Fine, but how am I doing this.  You don't question my truthfulness?   So it is true that my position embodies both grace and truth?  I can only assume who mean that you don't question that I think I'm being truthful.  Of course I think I am.  That's hardly the issue.

Intentionally giving a bat to an evil person to club your neighbor is not right; in your heart of hearts I think you know it would be wrong. 

No, I don't.  This is more opinion, intuition, whim, inclination morality.  "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."  Just because something is very intuitive, that doesn't make it right.

I agree we should focus on love, but let’s try adjusting our focus by sheding light on love and exposing it when it goes bad. 

Ok, how have I presented love in a way that has gone bad?  I'd like to take the Bible's model of love instead of my own intuition.

NEVER!  I believe love is at the core of what life is all about, it’s just not a free for all or an unbridled love orgy.  

Wow.  I was not aware that I advocated orgies.  Whoever the guy you are arguing is, he sounds pretty horrible.

Anyway, so somehow you've associated my position with "a free for all or an unbridled love orgy."  Right.  I've spent enough pages that I wouldn't expect this kind of misunderstanding.  In my understanding a "free for all" is a situation where there is no morality, everyone does whatever they want.  This bears absolutely NO resemblance to what I advocate.  I may advocate different morality than you, but I don't advocate no morality.  I honestly don't know how you could see my position as a free for all.

Unbridled love orgy.  I don't even know.  I mean...  That's...  What the...  I give up.  I have no idea where you got that.  Please inform me of how what I've said implies that we should have an unbridled love orgy even in the most vague, metaphorical sense.

 I’m saying all out love to the max, but love should not come at the expense of truth or vice versa. 

I fully agree.  How have I advocated truth at the expense of love or love at the expense of truth.  Remember the Christian loves his enemies and shows no favoritism.

That’s an example of truth lacking grace.   Can you think of any examples of grace lacking truth?

What about the very next post?  "You're right. That was over the top."  Now, tell me again how this has anything to do with Matt 5:42.  Sure, I've messed up before.  So tell me how I've messed up now.

Truth lacking grace would be someone telling someone they are sinful without telling them about Christ (something I didn't do in that post).  Grace lacking truth would be telling them everythings ok because of Jesus without ever telling them that what it was the Jesus fixed.

You seem to compare your giving with God's gifts, so let me ask you.

No, that was Jesus.

Does a Holy God answer the evil person’s prayer to give a requested weapon indented for evil?

He did in 1 Sam 8.

Would God then ignore the potential victim’s prayer that asks for protection from evil?

He does all the time 23,000 people die of starvation every day.  Thousands are murdered and sold for sex.  Evil is real and God answers, "Not yet," for many people until the day they die.

Is God not holy, is our Holy God divided against himself?

No, he's not.  Why do you say that?

What does the word “holy” mean to you?

It means "set apart, special."  What does this have to do with anything?

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/29/2005 3:21:07 PM (GMT-5)

That’s a good point, Jeff.  LOL I say when we attempt to extend “selective hearing” as a defense for our bad choices. 

P.S. I think you gave a good synopsis of Christ's sermon.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/30/2005 4:30:01 PM (GMT-5)

I can't get the colors to work so this might look weird.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 8/30/2005 6:35:42 PM (GMT-5)

Zach:  Try Mark 7:19 or Matt 5:38-42.  Jesus directly contradicts Torah.  Torah says some foods are unclean, and take eye for an eye.  Jesus directly says no.  You asked for examples and said that I didn't give one, but I did.  The very paragraph where the title for this thread come from.  I mentioned it in my last post.  Jesus doesn't have to say, "It is written."  It is well known to anyone aquainted with the Old Testament that it is written.  Ex 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21.  Do I really have to show that eye for an eye is an OT concept?

Jeff:  Okay.  I didn't remember you mentioning the above.  If you think that Christ was "cleansing" meats and referring to what was "written," I couldn't possibly give you a coherent explanation of the sermon on the mount.  To me the "meats" passage seems, contextually, to have nothing to do with cleansing "meats."  And as for "said" vs. "written," I can not believe that Christ would have just said that even the least of the torah commandments were to be followed if he were about to contradict that very Law.  And if he is saying that an "eye for an eye" was inherently wrong in every conceivable case, even the government, then I can't see how he would not have been contradicting that Law.  If he's contradicting it, the whole passage seems incoherent to me.

Which basically means, I'm left loving others as I love myself, which is how he ended the sermon, anyway.  If there are contradictions, I'm free to pick whichever side seems most reasonable to me, eh?  Love ya, bro.  Just don't want to get between you and someone wanting to kill me!!

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/30/2005 8:50:05 PM (GMT-5)

Mark: Grace was at the heart of the Jesus’ message, so technically, that is the side you have gone to far with.   On the other hand, one could argue that you have created laws out of the sermon.   When we become cold, insensitive and blinded to those we indirectly hurt, well, well, well, we are just like the radical religious truth fanatics we so often oppose and ironically similar to the Pharisees that Jesus opposed. When one side is in error then both sides suffer.

Sahid: Without God, there is no sin, no murder, no stealing, no adultry, nothing.  God facilitates evil.  Facilitate - To make easy or easier.

Mark:  That’s like blaming auto manufactures for auto accidents.  Blaming the creator for his creation, wow have you got the shoe on the wrong foot!  Free sentient beings are the ones to blame for evil.  It’s us that’s on trial not God.  This is it dude, your not arguing about Matt 5 any longer, you’re arguing that YOU are only as evil as God.  That God facilitates evil perfectly and YOU want to be perfect like your Heavenly Father is perfect.  You’re going to facilitate evil onto others just like God does onto others.  You think giving a gun to an evil person, so they can sin on others, is not contributing because you make a distinction that your assistance only makes it "easier" for them to kill and maim our children.  So in other words, God is only driving the getaway car, so YOU can too.  God is only helping load the gun, so YOU can too.  God is only printing the pornography because someone asked and by Gearge YOU can too.  Yeah, um…Dad said I could, so there!

Sahid:  Sure, she can use the bedroom.  I'll sleep on the couch. 

Mark: Maybe you really should be checking my spelling because apparently I didn’t spell it out. Your bed was not going to be used for sleeping dude, nope not by the promiscuous woman.  Let me complete the picture. She has two young men with her, their high as a kite and openly talking about the sex they are going to engage in.    P.S.  I hope you’re not a youth pastor. Because you would have a lot of explaining to do to the parents of the young girl and boys you donated your bedroom to.  

    ”It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble.”  Luke 17:2 (NRSV) 

Sahid:  RE: Galatians 6:7-10 (NRSV).  I agree with the verses, but it never says any thing about "good innocent people."

Mark: What do you call the “family of faith”, maybe you just think no one is really good and innocent and that all people should become victims of evil.  After all, God goes out of his way to make evil easy, right?

Mark: What the heck, Sahid, why did you ever reference 1 Sam 8?  I asked “if a Holy God answers the evil person’s prayer to give a requested weapon indented for evil”.  You said  He did in 1 Sam 8.  Now you say “I never said that, never said this”.   Please expound on 1 Sam 8.   Show me the money, dude!  Show me the goods!   

Sahid:  But he doesn't deliver all those who ask.  He actually perserves the lives (and by extention the ability to do evil) of their persecutors.

Mark: So, what are you saying now, that sometimes you will and sometimes you won’t give to your enemies?   It’s funny how you claim your not passing judgment and then pick and choose who you will assist in evil, and worse yet,  who will be the victims.

Sahid:  Because of sin, we are in a miserable condition.  Jesus fixes that.  The specific context on the other thread was self-worth.  Apart from Jesus we are right to have low self-worth.  But Jesus values us.  With him we are beautiful; apart form him we are ugly.  (Maybe not physically, but in the case addressed a year ago, physical beauty is hardly the issue.) 

Mark:  So this is grace lacking truth, Sahid.  Please listen, I don’t claim to be an authority on the Bible, but, the little I can, I will try and help.   First, you’re right in the sense that the one that chooses to pull the trigger is ultimately the one that is accountable for their choice.  But that does not get you off the hook for enabling them.   Second, sin is not an abstract condition that Jesus fixed in one fall swoop.  We are the carriers of sin.  That sin/evil comes from you and me, likewise, love comes from you and me through God, that’s the paradoxical grace and truth message on the mount.   Sin resides in our enemies too, but we are not to be found gouging our enemy’s eye out, to the contrary, we are to gouge our own eye out.  Can you see, Zach?  Sin is not an outside condition that we are victims of; we are the authors of our own sin. That’s the “self “part about it, not the issue of self-worth.   Jesus did not come to exalt us with self-worth, he came to humble us and open are eyes that we as individuals are what’s behind the evil in this world, that's the manifestation of grace.   His message was not to find blame in the Father by saying the Father enables sin in anyway.  The truth of his message was to point the finger back towards our self, repent and turn to Him for saving grace. 

Spark: Good, so we can say a holy God separates himself form evil and all impurities.  And this means to me that God is not divided against himself by assisting in evil deeds.

Sahid:  I don't disagree that it means that to you.  But it doesn't mean that in the Bible.  You guys keep bringing in your gut or your intuition.  But the Spirit testifies of Christ.  The Spirit is not an excuse to abandon Christ's teachings (or to make additions that change their fundamental meaning).  It may mean that "to you," but there is no logical implication and the Bible disagrees.  You must add extra-biblical exceptions to Jesus' teaching to call my view "perverted grace."  I'm not the one changing and adding to his words.  

Mark: Hmm… why do I feel like I’m the one using scripture to support my position, all the while, the same scripture is contesting your logic?   Never once does the Bible ascribe assisting evil as being holy.  That burden of proof still rest on your shoulders.

Spark:  In fact Jesus raised the bar of truth:   "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28 (NRSV)

 Sahid:  Yes.  I agree 100%.  He also raised the bar when it comes to love and generosity.  Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.  "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  I see this as a raising of the bar.  How could you possibly see it as lowering the bar.  Do you think it's easier to givet to all than it is to only give to "good innocent people?"

Mark: Jesus raised both bars; I’m arguing he did not do it at the expense of one or the other.  He did not raise one bar and in turn lower the other bar, instead he raised both to the max.  That’s the dilemma, Christians so often push the grace button in and out pops the truth button, or vice versa.  They're actually integrated, more of a slider or dimmer switch, if you will, where both are always on to some degree.  See Zach, Jesus is filled with both all the time.  John 1.

Spark:   Grace isn’t suppose to make one less holy, it’s suppose to make one more holy.  

Sahid:  Agreed, but you are assuming a version of "holiness" that cannot facilitate evil.  By this definition, not even the God of the Bible is holy.  He's the one who set up the tree right in the middle of the garden.  He's the one (along with but prior to the scerpent) who made it easy to (i.e. facilitated)  sin.

Mark: How does that “set apart” (holy) God from Satan?   I know, Satan is the author of evil but God gives him the pen, right…..that’s it, they’re pen pals.   Hmm... I wonder if God is going to get his pen back before he throws Satan into the Lake of Fire.  Regardless it’s a terrible way to treat a pal, but what the heck, God plays no favoritism I’m told.

Spark: The burden of proof you say?  I say if any words are being added to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount then it’s the words you imply that throws everything else Jesus taught about truth out the window with the bathwater of ethics.  

Sahid:  I disagree.  Jesus' words are recorded in Matthew and Luke.  They are largly unqualified there.  In other places other qualifications are made.  The most notiable is that we should not give or submit when doing so is sin (when Peter is told to stop preaching).  The idea that facilitating sin is sin contradicts the Bible's view of sin and holiness.  The extra qualification (that we should not give if the recipient will use the gift for evil) is simply not Biblical.  Since God facilitates evil time and again while still remaining holy, and since the NT tells us to give to the wicked without telling us to check how the gift will be used first, I don't see how you position is viable without some appeal to arational emotion.

Mark: Can you rephrase that, please.   I’m afraid my irrational emotion is hindering my comprehension.

Blessings,

Mark

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/1/2005 11:25:24 PM (GMT-5)

Zach, I've given up on arguing for my view, since mine depends on taking Christ's seeming acceptance of the Torah as binding.  But I went back to see a couple of your arguments, which are confusing to me:

Jeff:  I'm saying that the reasons for giving are to do GOOD to one's neighbor.

Zach:  Jesus had different reasons.   Matt 5:45.

Jeff:  When I looked at that verse, it wasn't even talking about giving to one who asked.  It was saying love ALL people, not just some.  How does that contradict my point and establish yours?

Jeff:  In other words, GIVE to ALL for the benevolent reasons that the law requires and you would have done to you.

Zach:  No, Jesus makes it clear what his reason is.  Luke 6:35.

Jeff:  Again, the verse says nothing about giving to him who asks.  It's about lending.  And it's about WHO to lend to, not WHY to lend.  The WHY is to "do good."  But the very fact that there are exceptions to the "give to him who asks," implies that some goods are greater than others.  For example, it is a greater good to forgive a spouse than divorce except in exceptional cases (Paul seemingly saw no problem with divorce from an unbelieving spouse to keep "peace").  Christ also implied that it is a greater good to work on the Sabbath to help a suffering neighbor than to rest on the Sabbath, although resting is a good, also.  Likewise, it is a greater good to pay your debtors with your disposable income than to give it to someone who doesn't even need it. 

The greatest good must be judged in each case.  When a person is explicitly asking for a "weapon" to do evil with, it seems to defy the very definition of an "intent to do good" to give the "weapon" to said "asker."  I don't see why Christ must have spelled that one out?  Why, in other words, wouldn't the phrase "as thyself" count as a black and white statement that covers all the myriad of cases that could not be spelled out, specifically?

Jeff:  Your contention seems to imply that a parent should allow their young child to have a poisonous snake upon request on the grounds that God created poisonous snakes.

Zach:  Assuming that "young children" are to be treated as morally responsible people, yes.  However, I don't assume that.  But even if I did, so what?  Do you have anything more than opinion or inclination to back up the claim that such an action is wrong?

Jeff:  So are you saying that apart from explicit scriptural text, we should "assume" that "young children" should be treated as morally responsible people?  Is there no ethical duty that can be accurately inferred from a common-sensical understanding of human nature and the golden rule? 

If so, how do we account for Romans 1 where it says that those given over to a reprobate mind had done evil things KNOWING they were worthy of death?  Indeed, being DISOBEDIENT TO PARENTS was in that list!  No doubt, we are all different in WHAT we know, and to what DEGREE.  But to say that NO one knows ANYTHING about what is morally right apart from a black and white text from God seems to contradict the scripture, itself, which implies otherwise.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/1/2005 9:05:48 PM (GMT-5)

My computer decided to quit on me, but I'm back.  Soooo....

I don't have to use math to explain progressive revelation.  How about teaching a little child that the sun is up in the sky.  Technically this is a lie.  But before we get to Copernicus and then Einstein, we've got to start with the sun up in the sky.  For God to engage in such an "untruthful" endeavor, it looks like he cares more about people than the technical truth.  (BTW, I do believe that Jesus, being God and all, had a better grasp of mathematics than I, but I know that's debatable).

Post Edited (Sahid) : 9/8/2005 5:27:41 AM (GMT-5)

I commend you on the choice of such a non-biased source.  One, if not the, of the major reasons condoms fail is that users are not taught how to use them.

But all this aside...

So what’s next Zach, are ya’ flipping the girl coin for an abortion?  

Before answering let's think about the question.  I think I'm safe in assuming that the connotation is that "flipping the girl coin for an abortion" is wrong.  "Why?" I'm left to wonder.  This couldn't be an argument against what I've said, because all it does is assume an answer before asking the question.  But answering the question without circular reasoning is what I've been trying to do.  If this question is supposed to reveal the unreasonableness of my position, it instead only raises an objection grounded in unreasoning-ness.

Let's now examine the imagined context for such a question.  A girl is pregnant.  She asks me, an outspoken pro-lifer who is paying for college with loan money, to finance her abortion.  Why not involve aliens in this hypothetical?  Or maybe Bill Gates begging for spare change?  They wouldn't take much away from the realistic-ness of the hypothetical situation.  But anyway...

Yes.  If a girl asked for the money and I had it to give I think I would give it.  But wait, that's not all.  (I hope) I would also do everything Christlike in my power to keep the abortion from happening.  I'd pray, let everyone know who might influence her decision for the better, explain to her the moral, physical, spiritual, and emotional consequences, beg her to wait, and whatever else I might think of.

Your question (if I'm right in guessing that you assume an affirmative answer to be immoral) raises an emotional objection to my position.  "It doesn't feel right."  The problem with this is that it's pointless to bring up.  Unless you can show that everything that feels right is good, the objection carries no logical weight.  That's ok.  It's fine to base your beliefs on emotions. To prove you wrong in doing so, I'd have to use circular reasoning myself.  The thing is, I'm trying to base my beliefs on the Bible using reason.  I bear no grudge against those who do not choose to do the same, but I wish they would stop saying they do when they don't.  I don't quite know what to do with your question.  Are you actually asking for clarification of what I believe, or are you just trying to make a point?

Now it's my turn.  What's the moral difference between me financing an abortion (while also using all Christlike (as I understand the term) options to stop it possible) and God selecting the means and guiding the process by which Israel  "rejected [God] as their king"?  In the command to be holy as God is holy is it understood that I should ignore the biblical account of how God acts?

Just let me know what you're up to.  Do you claim to be logical?  If so which of my statements do you disagree with: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?  Or are you basing your objection on something arational like emotion, common sense, or the Spirit's internal leading in your life?  If so, we are not speaking the same language, so it's pointless to argue.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 9/12/2005 3:57:08 AM (GMT-5)

Hush now, sit down and draw your ear real close to your computer, Zach.  I’m going to let you in on a little secret here.  YOU’RE  NOT GOD!

No! I don't agree so far. It’s the same illogical argument atheist try to use.

I don’t agree God is omnipotent without adding in he is also omniscient.  One must first qualify omnipotent with omniscience.  God is to smart to create a rock to heavy for God to lift.  Likewise, God is to smart to become unholy as you suggest.  

Back to Sunday School,

Mark

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/12/2005 5:47:28 PM (GMT-5)

Zach:  If I am sinning, I, on some level want to sin.  The same is true of you.  You say you "hope people would not facilitate [your] sinning," but at some level you want to sin.  Regardless of whether you know it's sin or not, you, at some level want to do that which is sin.  If Jesus is referring to this (arguably most) basic form of desire, then Jesus' words make sense without external qualifiaction.  If he is referring to a dormant desire to be holy while in the act of sinning, then, yes, we must assume that he did not fully mean what he said.  Given the wider context of Jesus telling us to give to the wicked, serve the Romans, love the enemies, and pray for our persecutors, the basic desires are what I think Jesus is referring to.  If he is getting into something like Paul's "I do what I don't want to do" then the golden rule becomes nonsensical (that is, without logic built on nonbiblical premises, which I don't see a reason to use unless they are needed).

Jeff:  Obviously if I sin, I want to on some level.  It's just that if I KNEW it was sin, I would have very good reason to NOT do it.  And there are plenty enough scriptures about exhorting one another to well-doing, that it seems obvious to me that we are to facilitate people in doing what is ACTUALLY in their best interest, not the opposite.  That is what love IS to me.  Seeking another's greatest interest.

Zach:  To your earlier post:  The reasons Jesus mentions are so that we will be like our Father in heaven.  We give to the wicked, not primarily for their benefit, but for ours.  Jesus doesn't say, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you[in the way describe in the preceding verses], so that they might be without need."  He says, "So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."

Jeff:  I agree, we are to LOVE our enemies--which means, to me, we are to seek the greatest good EVEN of our enemies, rather than wish or seek their harm simply because they ARE our enemies.  What you and I disagree with is what a person's greatest good IS.  The kingdom of God is not meat and drink.  Food and drink are to be given to those who HUNGER, even enemies, as Paul says.  If they have plenty already, giving them more simply because they ask doesn't help them in any way, as I understand one's greatest good.  In fact, it facilitates their undoing, and it CERTAINLY doesn't seem to bring their sin to LIGHT, as Paul says we are to do.  In such a case, do we give the rich guy our money and rebuke him for asking for it at the same time?  When my actions contradict my words, I don't see how I'm being light.

You bring up Saul, but God EXPLICITLY told the Israelites that receiving a king in NO wise exempted them from keeping God's covenant.  The law provided for a king, so there was nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong with it.  God knew the MOTIVE for requesting a king, and THAT is what He disapproved of.  But having provided for a king in the law, He gave them their king, with a dire warning about the consequences of disobedience.  So it can NOT be said that God gave the king thinking it was an evil or with indifference to what the people or king DID.

Zach:  How much faith must it take to give with love and cheerfulness to a wicked person who we are close to certain will use our gift to hurt innocent people?  How foolish does that sound?  I'm not saying it doesn't take faith, and I'm not saying that it doesn't sound stupid.  I'm just saying it's what Jesus calls holiness.

Jeff:  I would agree that by giving our enemy food and drink when he hungers, we may very well be "enabling" him to do evil to another due to the sustenance that we are providing.  But THAT we don't know.  Therefore OUR intent, which is to do GOOD to our enemy, need not COINCIDE with the intent of the ENEMY.  When, however, an enemy EXPLICITLY asks for a weapon to harm an innocent person with, our INTENTIONAL provision of said weapon DOES COINCIDE with the evil INTENT of the enemy. 

Or at least it seems so to me.  And that's why, to me, it seems intellectually dishonest to claim we're intending good when our intentional action is coinciding, to the best of our knowledge, with an evil intent.  Unless, of course, giving is always good, without qualification.  But we've all agreed that it is now ALWAYS good.

Which gets back to my point about giving scissors to 3-year olds just because they ask.  It is NOT that 3-year olds aren't morally accountable that causes to withhold the scissors.  It is what we know about what is GOOD for the child, given his limitations, that motivates us.  The known or believed GOOD is ALWAYS the motivator, just as Christ practically said in the Luke verse you mentioned.  That's why it DOES make sense to refer to what we would have done to us.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/14/2005 5:11:22 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/15/2005 6:51:11 PM (GMT-5)