 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/9/2005 11:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
I don't want to start an argument on what I think about this verse. I just want to hear how or when you guys justify not following the simple, first impression reading.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
 |
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 8/10/2005 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not sure I understand - what it is it about the simple first impression reading we need to justify not doing? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/10/2005 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...What if a bad person makes an evil request of you? Do we still give to the one who asks?
Can you share examples of Jesus being complicit in evil?
No man, from what is called a principle of charity or generosity, should give that which belongs to his creditors.
Generosity is Christlike but justice has claim in both love and law, we should seek to maintain balance in both grace and truth.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/10/2005 11:57:14 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/10/2005 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
My 'first impression' reading does not include granting evil requests.
Would that include not giving the wife the remote to watch that evil show “Desperate Housewives”? 
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/10/2005 1:43:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/10/2005 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...Why don't you include granting evil requests?
If your wife asks you to pick up some cyanide on your way home from work so she could poison the kids supper, and you did, YOU BOTH WOULD BE GOING TO JAIL and/or to HELL.
The verse is about giving to the poor, it's not about blindly throwing resources at them. Mother Teresa said something to the effect “don’t just give money but give yourself. You don’t just give money to the homeless so they can go out and buy drugs and alcohol. It's better served to give them a meal and shelter. You have to use discernment and wisdom with your gifts. We will be known by our fruits, good trees don’t produce bad fruits. Hopefully good gifts don't transpire bad outcomes.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/10/2005 4:03:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 8/10/2005 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | ok, I see what you're getting at. I'm with Tom that my first reading doesn't come up with anything along the lines of 'grant evil requests' simply because of the obvious intention of the text - I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard recently and he had a big theme going through his book that Jesus in his teaching isn't trying to set up a new set of laws, but the things he says are more along the lines of illustrations of principles. When he tells us to go the extra mile, we're not to do it as a new law whether it's appropriate or not (taking the extra mile literally) but we are to be the sort of people who will naturally offer to go further than is strictly required of us. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/10/2005 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
If your wife asks you to pick up some cyanide on your way home from work so she could poison the kids supper, and you did, YOU BOTH WOULD BE GOING TO JAIL and/or to HELL. Jail? Yes. Hell? We need more than your say so.
sparknheart said...
The verse is about giving to the poor, it's not about blindly throwing resources at them. Mother Teresa said something to the effect “don’t just give money but give yourself. You don’t just give money to the homeless so they can go out and buy drugs and alcohol. It's better served to give them a meal and shelter. You have to use discernment and wisdom with your gifts. We will be known by our fruits, good trees don’t produce bad fruits. Hopefully good gifts don't transpire bad outcomes. No, it's not necessarily about the poor. The context is dealing with our enemies: the violent, Roman soldiers, those who persecute... Where do you get the poor out of this?
I personally don't give money to the poor so they can buy drugs or alcohol (of course there's nothing wrong with alcohol). Neither do I give them money so they can have food. I give money because Jesus commands it. The verse doesn't say, "Give to the one who asks you unless you in your knowledge of the future know that what you give will be used poorly."
markporter said...
ok, I see what you're getting at. I'm with Tom that my first reading doesn't come up with anything along the lines of 'grant evil requests' simply because of the obvious intention of the text - I've been reading a book by Dallas Willard recently and he had a big theme going through his book that Jesus in his teaching isn't trying to set up a new set of laws, but the things he says are more along the lines of illustrations of principles. When he tells us to go the extra mile, we're not to do it as a new law whether it's appropriate or not (taking the extra mile literally) but we are to be the sort of people who will naturally offer to go further than is strictly required of us. Sounds like Divine Conspiracy. Great book! I personally don't fully agree with him on this point, however. If we are to take it non-literally, we should have a reason.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/10/2005 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: The verse doesn't say, "Give to the one who asks you unless you in your knowledge of the future know that what you give will be used poorly."
Jeff: Yes, Zach, but it also doesn't "SAY" give to him who asks unless that money is promised or owed to someone, but you make that exception, yourself. So what it says is not the whole deal. If we take another one in the same passage - turn the other cheek - we can analogously ask, "Are we to not even try to run away from someone trying to beat us to death?" Christ told his disciples to run to the next city if they were persecuted in one city. I don't really think he literally meant to provide the next body part to be beat by a violent person. I agree with the above post, that it is the PRINCIPLE that is being emphasized by extreme language. In other words, IF the only alternative to retaliation is literally provide the other cheek to be smashed, then provide the other cheek. But IF you can run away, that's fine, too.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/10/2005 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: You say, "I don't really think..." Why? Because it seems foolish?
Jeff: Because that's how I see that Christ explained the ox in the ditch scenario. YES, they were not supposed to work on the Sabbath. But that, as I understand Christ, was because the Sabbath was FOR MAN'S GOOD. The minute MAN'S GOOD had to be neglected to stay "literally" true to the "don't work" clause (e.g., a physician refusing to help a dying person on the Sabbath), the "don't work" WORDS were no longer relevant. Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding Christ, here, but that is HONESTLY the only way I know how to make sense of his argument about the ox, etc. Likewise with the "turn the other cheek" clause. It seems that Christ intended for his disciples to flee harm if possible. But a wooden literalism of the "turn the other cheek" clause would say DON'T flee harm, but offer up the next body part to be destroyed, unconditionally.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/10/2005 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach, an 19th century author, Noah Porter, said the following, which I think might have some applicability:
It would be preposterous to think of furnishing an ethical system for the entire human race during all the changes and unlimited phases of it's existence. In what sense, then, and how, can Christianity propose itself as an ethical system which shall be adequate to guide the human race in all it's variety of internal and external conditions during all the phases of it's possible development and progress. Plainly, only as it enforces certain principles in the most general forms of their application; and it is precisely in this way that human duties are taught by the Great Teacher. We ought not to be surprised, that in order to enforce these principles as principles, and also to show that in their use they admit of an endless variety of applications, so many should be announced in an extreme and even in a paradoxical form, as in many of the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. The form is paradoxical, in order to show that a literal interpretation is not intended, and a literal obedience is impossible: as, "Whosever smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away the coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." This method of teaching ethics, indeed, is not peculiar to Christ, being oriental in it's type; but the daring with which it is used without loss of dignity or earnestness, and the boldness with which it is applied to large classes of duties which are unpleasant, and made to cover, as it were, the entire field of human activities, are characteristic of the Christian ethics.
It would have been nice if Mr. Porter would have given other examples of that "method of teaching." But I can't help but wonder if he's onto something. Whereas today, much oriental thought is considered contradictory, maybe in the past it was paradoxical for the reason Porter explained - to emphasize principles. Additionally, what seems significant to me is that the sermon on the mount is concluded by Christ saying, "THEREFORE, whatsover you would that men DO UNTO YOU, do ye even so to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." I, personally, don't wish that men take the money that I owe to others, or the money I've promised to others, or the money that I need to support my family, or the money that I can find a host of more benevolent purposes for. Maybe that makes me selfish, but we have to deal with the other obligations revealed in scripture somehow and some way. So I think the EXTREME form of Christ's statements was used to show the CONTRAST of loving as one loves their self with that hypocritical self-interest that so leavened the Pharisees' and Saducees' interpretation of the Law and Prophets.
There's no obvious simple black and white "answer" as to how to harmonize all our duties based on the mere words of texts. We must abstract the principle from the text to see how to apply that principle in circumstances that the text does not account for. That is what Porter is saying. And that, I think, was Christ's point about the ox. That's the best I can come up with, anyway.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 8/10/2005 7:30:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/10/2005 10:27 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Jail? Yes. Hell? We need more than your say so.
So it’s acceptable for me to quote the law of the land but it’s not acceptable for me to quote the law of God?
Sahid said...
No, it's not necessarily about the poor. The context is dealing with our enemies: the violent, Roman soldiers, those who persecute... Where do you get the poor out of this?
I personally don't give money to the poor so they can buy drugs or alcohol (of course there's nothing wrong with alcohol). Neither do I give them money so they can have food. I give money because Jesus commands it. The verse doesn't say, "Give to the one who asks you unless you in your knowledge of the future know that what you give will be used poorly."
I believe the point Jesus was trying to make was to show the vain attempts of keeping the law. It was an extreme contrast to Moses Law that Jesus was trying to convey while using almost a sarcastic tone. The lawlessness was running wild to the extent people were taking vengeance with the eye for an eye mentality. I think He was saying stop the madness, give him your coat, turn your other cheek just give them what they want, whatever it takes just don’t loose your cool. He was asking them to follow his lead, setting an example of peaceful followers that would display God’s grace. The Old Testament leaned more toward truth; Jesus was trying to swing people back to center by teaching grace. The verse should not be translated to swing the pendulum from one extreme of truth to one extreme of grace.
Matthew 5:17 (NLT)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets.
I think Jeff is on the right track I believe it's a paradox, a grace and truth paradox.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/11/2005 8:05:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2005 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
As to the contradictions, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. What contradictions? The Sabbath law was an OT law that Jesus explicated. The no resistance statement is Jesus'. There is no parallel there. I'm not saying Jesus was giving hard and fast laws. But he did say to go beyond the minimum, even and especially when we deal with "evil" people.
Contradiction you say? You’re the first to introduce the word into this discussion. Did you mean paradox? A paradox only appears on the surface to be a contradiction. It seems to me, iIf there is a contradiction here it would be your assertion that giving instruments used for evil is good. If you have direct knowledge that the instrument will be used for sin, and you still freely give the instrument to someone anyways, then you are complicit in that sin.
The "parallel" is not between differing laws (ox and sabbath) but between love and law (grace and truth). Out of love the law was given, but it was being perverted. Like you implied, Jesus was not giving new hard and fast laws. Instead, he was trying to reconcile love and law as one. It seems to me, you are perverting love by swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. There’s a good reason why you’re struggling with this verse, Sahid.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/11/2005 1:12:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2005 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I would also suggest Jesus was preparing his followers for the persecution that awaited them.
But recall those earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and persecution, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. [34] For you had compassion for those who were in prison, and you cheerfully accepted the plundering of your possessions, knowing that you yourselves possessed something better and more lasting. Hebrews 10:32 (NRSV)
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2005 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...I think Jesus does "swing" to the other extreme.
"And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." (John 1:14.)
Jesus is not filled with only love and grace, he is equally filled with law and truth. Not fifty% of one or the other but 100% of each.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/11/2005 2:08:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/11/2005 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: God gives rain to the good and the evil, and I'm glad he does. I was the latter.
Jeff: God gives for good purposes. No one is denying that we should give to evil PEOPLE. It is the objective of the giving that needs to be good. But your approach seems to say we should not, because Christ did not, have an objective at all - good or evil - but that we are to just give with no concern, whatsoever, about the consequences of our actions. If this is Jesus' teaching, how do you explain Christ's agreement with the Jews that they were to work to get their ox out of the ditch on the sabbath? It seems to me that it was PRECISELY the consequences that would befall the ox that Christ was concerned about in agreeing with the exception to the "no work" rule. But there was no verse where it said "don't work on the sabbath unless an ox falls in the ditch on the sabbath." They were supposed to have been able to JUDGE that on their own. And they DID.
In fact, Paul said that he gave JUDGEMENT by telling the Corinthians to not give to the extent that one was under pressure that another may have ease. Not because it was intrinsically wrong to "pressure" yourself to help another, but because it was not the OBJECTIVE of giving to the poor saints in Jerusalem to do that. Interestingly, if you compare Paul's "judgement" to the Corinthians to Rom. 15:27, it would seem that Paul is contradicting himself. For he says the Gentiles are DEBTORS to the Jewish saints. But context is what provides us with the info to resolve these seeming contradictions.
However, IF Christ was really trying to make a hard and fast rule that we are to unconditionally offer new body parts to those who would strike them rather than flee harm, then I would agree with you that he intended us to "give to him who asks," unconditionally. BUT, at least SOME qualifications are necessary to make any sense at all of that verse, even according to you. I'm not bringing this up to say "YOU DO IT, TOO." I'm saying it to make the point that one's theology must be consistent to be lived out non-hypocritically. For we KNOW hypocrisy is wrong - UNCONDITIONALLY. Don't we?????? That is the bottom line for me.
Zach: If we are to take it non-literally, we should have a reason.
Jeff: I don't hold literally to an ambiguous command if, by doing so, I have to be a hypocrite. The bible is a big book. I don't feel the need to have it all figured out by this evening. But I DO feel the need to be non-hypocritical on my search for understanding. Does this make sense?
Zach: When it comes to social or ethical matters the New Testament's actual words are often ignored in exchange for general principals (except when it says we can keep slaves or rule over women).
Jeff: I think there ARE general principles that condition those exceptions, too.
Tom: "Be a generous and giving person, so far as you are able."
Jeff: This is exactly what I think he means, also. I.e., to the extent that "so far as you are able" is enlightened by Paul's judgement above and other duties we have with respect to our resources. Especially since in Luke, Christ contrasted HIS way of giving to that of the Pharisees, which looked to recompense IN THIS LIFE. For they loved those that loved them, only. And that contrast, alone, seems to FOCUS the intent of Christ's words to the idea of being unselfish - not being unconcerned about how the "gift" was to be used or what the "gift" was. If someone asks for $20 and you give only $1 because that's all you can afford, given your other obligations, you may still be fulfilling Christ's objective.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/11/2005 9:09:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 99 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:42 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 |
|
|