 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/2/2006 11:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Zach: Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
To say that in this passage John is "sanctioning" violence is, at best, an argument from silence. In the book of John an effort is made to show that John is not the messiah; the diferences between the two are emphasized. I'm not saying that's happening here, but in the book of John, the Baptist's word is not always the "gospel truth."
Jeff: I don't see how it's an argument from silence. John the Baptist was a prophet. Moreover, he was the prophet that was to prepare the way for the Messiah. The fact that he and other prophets were not the messiah is not necessarily relevant. Christ never talked as if prohets were to be ignored. He said the opposite. He said the law and prophets would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away. He said the scripture could not be broken (which presumably means prophetic writings).
Zach: Still, I think he says the perfect thing here. A few penitent Roman soldiers are not going to put an end to war in the empire, and while I (and the early Church) think employment in the army is immoral, it is far more important to master the simple disciplines of the kingdom.
Jeff: Far more important to who? How could being satisfied with wages be more important than the use of the sword? I think most people would rather be robbed than killed by sword. Doesn't the knowledge of a wrong obligate us to avoid it? Whether they were capable of stopping war is irrelevant. That is still true today, and yet you say we are now obligated to put down the sword.
Zach: As to Christ and the law: The law says, "Thou shalt not kill." Moses commanded the Israelites to kill Midianite children. This action is contrary to the law. Moses, like John, was not perfect.
Jeff: As I understand it, the law says "Thou shalt not murder." Killing people God tells you to kill is not necessarily murder. The law tells about all kinds of people that were to be killed. The only way the law could be considered intelligible is if killing is not necessarily murder.
Zach: Furthermore the law prohibits shaving and "sanctions" selling children. Whatever we make of Christ and the law, we must take our more explicit disobediences into account. If the Church is to follow the law, then why aren't we stoning more homosexuals?
Jeff: I wouldn't argue that the church is to keep the law. But Jesus was a Jew prophesying and preaching to other Jews.
Zach: If Christ kept the law it a literalistic way, then how can he declare it's unclean foods clean?
Jeff: I don't assume that Christ did declare unclean food clean. The subject of that discourse was eating with unclean hands, not unclean food. The following article gives a good argument for the equivocal nature of the interpretation you metion: http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf.
Moreover, weren't the Jews trying to catch Jesus in a violation of the Law? If he was going around advocating eating unclean meats, their case would have been made. Those who despised the law of Moses were stoned on two or three witnesses.
Zach: A reading of the New Testament itself speaks against Christ's literal compliance to the law. There are many differences between Christ and the law.
Jeff: What other examples do you have?
And let me say, before we get too far, what I think the bottom line is. When I read in the OT about a woman crying for help when being raped, I get the idea that people considered it morally obligatory to help her. Would you agree with this much? And if so, would you agree that such help might entail some use of force? For if we can't agree on this, even, then there's no real conflict or tension for you as there is for me in need of resolution.
That tension doesn't just come from the OT, per se. It also resonates with my intuitive sense of moral obligation. So I have three streams of input:
1) My intuitional sense of moral obligation leads me to believe that some use of force can be obligatory to help defend the weak from the strong.
2) The OT seems to affirm that same ethic.
3) Christ doesn't seem to be interested in trumping the OT, but fulfilling and affirming it.
Granted, Christ's view of the law entailed considerably less self-interest than the Pharisees' and Saducees' views. But I don't see how helping a woman being raped (with some use of force, even) has anything to do with self-interest, necessarily.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/3/2006 1:15:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/4/2006 3:12 AM (GMT -6) | | | Number One: I deeply appreciate thoughtful discussion on this topic. I recognize that I could very well be wrong, and I'm all but certain that some of what I believe on this topic is wrong. I've done some looking and its hard to find satisfying books or articles on this specific subject.
Now on to it...
The Luke 3 passage only supports an argument from silence (for both you and me). John neither sanctions nor condemns use of the sword. If the question is "Was John the Baptist a pacifist?" then my answer is, "I don't know." In this passage John is telling people how to repent and become true children of Abraham. In short, he is telling them the essentials. The soldiers ask, "What about us?" What would we say to them? These were Roman soldiers. This was an army just as cruel and powerful as the one that occupies the same land today. If an Israeli soldier were to ask we this question, I would not talk about pacifism (although I am a pacifist). I would, hopefully, talk about basic human decency: "Stop stealing, stop giving false reports to the media, be content with what you have, quit shooting kids." If someone were to overhear this conversation and conclude that I am not a pacifist, the listener would be wrong. John's comments in Luke 3 are entirely consistent with pacifism, but they are not proof of his support or refusal of pacifism.
I said it was more important for John to address the basics than to make a case for pacifism. I stand by this. If a man is beating his wife and comes to me for advice, I am going to focus on that specific problem. I am not going to discuss the impossibility of a just war or my hermeneutic approach to the gospels. In John's case it is likely that his hypothetical pacifism would be supported by reasons that would be alien to Roman soldiers. Like you said, there was no war in Judea at the time. For John to talk about it here would be for him to ignore the more pressing matter at hand. Knowledge of a wrong does obligate us to avoid it. I just don't know what wrong a hypothetically pacifist John is failing to avoid in this passage.
To the law...
In your post I heard some faint hints of dispensationalism. I am not a dispensationalist in any normal sense of the word. If you are one then we have a bigger issue to resolve and much of our talk about the law will be apples and oranges.
Your bible says "murder," mine says "kill." I don't know Hebrew, so I don't know. What translation says murder? Having studied Greek, I kinda know the principles and biases of a few translations. Either way I can't imagine Jesus whispering into Moses' ear, "Don't forget to kill the infants." To be honest, if that is Jesus, then I'm done with Christianity. Kinda like Meph in one of his recent posts about God planning violence. So, needless to say I am not an inerrantist. I don't believe Jesus was one either. This might be another issue that must be dealt with before the discussion can move on.
You said Jesus was a Jew preaching to other Jews. I agree. But if we take this line of reasoning in the direction I think you want to go, then you cut yourself off. Why would you let anything from the Old Testament inform your Christian beliefs? God sanctioned war in the Old Testament, sure. But those were Jews. If stoning homosexuals and selling children is only ok for Jews, then why is Old Testament violence ok for everyone? Whatever standard you have for reading the Old Testament, it cannot be pick-and-choose: "I like the war but I don't care for the ritual sacrifice."
I read the article about Mark 7, and I disagree. The article would translate it something like: "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? because it does not go into the heart, but into the colon and into the latrine, purging all foods." It's interesting that the article does not give its own translation of the complete passage. This translation makes no sense. Can you follow it? Nothing that enters us can make us unclean because when we defecate the food is made clean? And this is the higher spiritual meaning? Even if that was what the passage said, it still doesn't change the fact that "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean." But Leviticus says, "If anyone touches something unclean—whether human uncleanness or an unclean animal or any unclean, detestable thing—and then eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off from his people." Furthermore, the common translation is not a mistranslation. Both the common rendering and this article's rendering are theoretically possible. It's just that the article's rendering is nonsensical. Jesus is probably not expounding on the purity of poo.
You said: "Moreover, weren't the Jews trying to catch Jesus in a violation of the Law? If he was going around advocating eating unclean meats, their case would have been made."
I am not saying that Jesus advocated eating unclean meats. This, again, is an argument from silence. Like the article says, this was an argument about ritual washing - an argument started by the Pharisees. It is interesting that Zwingli both preached on the acceptability of breaking lent but also advised against doing so. Paul does something similar when he condones marriage but advises against it. Just because Jesus declared all foods clean doesn't mean that he "was going around advocating eating unclean meats." I don't believe in ritual purity laws, but that doesn't mean I recommend that people eat camel.
You asked for differences between Jesus and the law. They are manifold. But the best example, in my opinion, is in Matthew 5. You have heard it said "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil man.
This is where the rubber hits the road. In the Deuteronomy passage it says, "Show no pity." If that's just for Jews, then Jews can't be obedient Christians. This is not just about personal vengence. This is the law of the tribes. If Tom breaks Joe's tooth, then the assembly has someone go break Tom's tooth. This is a deliberate, communal act. In the same way if a child is attacked or a woman raped, there is deliberate action that the community must take under Mosaic Law. Basically it's recipropical justice. The very opposite of forgiveness. I don't believe in absolving sin with more violence. I don't believe in killing a pigeon to make up for beating my girlfriend. I don't believe in crucifying God to wash away my impure thoughts. Instead I believe in Jesus and his teachings. Repent. Forgive. There is no bloodthirsty justice of God that needs dead animals and a dead messiah to be satisfied. There are bloodthirsty men who do their best to please God and come up with violent and perverse systems of atonement. God loves these men and appreciates the sincerity and pure heart with which they murder his creatures. Even when they come to murder him out of some twisted since of piety, he says, "Forgive them. They don't know what they are doing."
For me Christus Victor, Open Theism/LFW, Pacifism, Anarchism, and Progressive Revelation all form one cohesive line of thought. If we are talking about what to do when we see child abuse or rape, we must remember, "do not resist and evil person." This sounds either heartless or shortsighted, but not nearly so heartless or shortsighted as the religious killing of newborns and pregnant women.
Sorry. That was longwinded. It's just that I have a hard time talking just about pacifism or just about biblical revelation. For me, so many of these things are deeply connected. None of these things can be taken without the other. They are the same idea looked at from different angles. I don't see how a satisfaction theory of atonement or the Mosaic Law it copies can reconcile itself with open theism. And I don't see how the teachings of Jesus make any sense if open theism is denied. Of course this means that I end up with what some would call a low view of scripture. I take solace in the knowledge that our savior was given that same criticism.
Sorry for writing a book. It happens from time to time.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/4/2006 3:20:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/4/2006 3:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I liked this:
Jeff said...
And let me say, before we get too far, what I think the bottom line is. When I read in the OT about a woman crying for help when being raped, I get the idea that people considered it morally obligatory to help her. Would you agree with this much? And if so, would you agree that such help might entail some use of force? For if we can't agree on this, even, then there's no real conflict or tension for you as there is for me in need of resolution.
That tension doesn't just come from the OT, per se. It also resonates with my intuitive sense of moral obligation. So I have three streams of input:
1) My intuitional sense of moral obligation leads me to believe that some use of force can be obligatory to help defend the weak from the strong.
2) The OT seems to affirm that same ethic.
3) Christ doesn't seem to be interested in trumping the OT, but fulfilling and affirming it. This makes sense to me (except #3 which I will talk about below). It just feels like force would be ok sometimes. I do feel that tension (but not because of any Old Testament law; it is this same sympathy for victims of violence that leads me to reject the spirit of those Old Testament passages which command infanticide and genocide). But there is also another tension. Jesus dealt with far more day-to-day, real-life violence than I do. They were crucifying people in public back then. When the authorities were gentle they flogged you. So, if I were to say something like turn the other cheek, it would be easy to dismiss me or take my words metaphorically. I can't do that with Jesus. When he says, "resist not," he is speaking in the context of deliberate societal action. Jews were never allowed to pluck out the eye of the man who just plucked out theirs. This was communal vengance. It was a meticulously fair legal system with due process. It was the way that the community stood up for its victims. And Jesus said stop it. Maybe there is some way of reconciling Jesus' words with some form of limited use of force, but that's the tension I'm dealing with.
I also think that Matthew 5 makes it clear that Jesus is in fact trumping and fulfilling the Old Testament while negating parts. As the Baptists once said, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." Not the other way around.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/4/2006 3:51:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/4/2006 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: Your bible says "murder," mine says "kill." I don't know Hebrew, so I don't know. What translation says murder?
Jeff: Don't know of a translation. I just have heard that the Hebrew had words for kill and murder and that "murder" is the word used in the decalogue. I'll check it in my lexicon
With respect to killing children, the Torah doesn't advocate killing children, per se. The Torah speaks of God killing children in the flood and in the Exodous. Therefore, there is nothing incoherent, given that presumed history, to suppose God couldn't order the killing of children in certain providential and judgmental circumstances.
Christ seems to imply as much himself. He speaks of days of vengeance (future to his speaking) when there shall be woe "to them that are with child and who give suck" and "men's heart failing them from fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the porwer of heaven shall be shaken." It would appear that Christ is allowing for God's providential vengeance to ill-affect children. Yet Christ and the Father are identical in nature, supposedly.
And natural evil seems to entail the same theodicy issues to me, anyway. Children are killed by disease and natural disasters that God could stop with no problem, but He doesn't. How do we call God evil on the one hand but good on the other? To my mind, the only way to resolve this is to assume that God kills and allows death for reasons that are ultimately benevolent, whether we can understand them or not.
With respect to Mark 7, the simple meaning, to my mind, is that Christ is saying, "don't worry about eating with dirt on your hands, cause the dirt will pass." So it's not about excrement being clean, as you say. It's about the dirt passing out of the body. In any case, it's hard to imagine why Christ brings up the whole digestive imagery if it had anything to do with ritually unclean foods--especially since they weren't even the subject of the passage.
But it is true, as Christ said, that foods don't make people unclean. Paul said the same thing when he said that nothing is unclean "of itself." The ritual uncleanness was just that--ritual uncleanness. Consequently, Gentiles were not made ritually unclean by eating them and Israelites were not made ritually unclean by eating them prior to God's making them ritually unclean to the covenant keepers.
But I'm in agreement with you that the "don't resist evil" command seems to be in disagreement with the Torah. But it is the only thing Christ said that seems to be contradictory to the Torah that I'm aware of. I know of no manifold collection of examples. Maybe you could help me out there.
But I think there's reason to consider some lack of hyper-literalness, there. First, he starts that part of the sermon talking about the law of retaliation. And the greek word for resist does have "anti" in it, which can have the idea of "against." Second, it's hard to imagine that he means we should literally turn the other cheek or the equivalent in all circumstances of harm. For he tells his disciples to flee when persecuted. So attempts at safety do not seem to be always forbidden in circumstances of evil being done to us. Third, you've moderated, if I remember correctly, on the "give to him who asks."
So I would tend, at this time, to think that "give to him who asks," in it's context means, "give to him who asks, without consideration of any animosity you might hold to the person: consider only whether you see the giving as the greatest good." Similarly, I would think that "resist not evil" might mean something like, "instead of having a retaliatory spirit, have a spirit of non-resistance that considers the good or evil that will result from your actions."
In short, the sermon seems to be in a form of wisdom literature or something that tries to make points in short, concise, and sometimes hyperbolic fashion. James does, too, but he seems to balance out the hyperbole by contrasting different perspectives. Like when James says "you have not because you ask not," but then later says "you have not because you ask amiss..." Both of these comments by James correspond to the Sermon. Christ says ask and he says pray that God's will be done. So there's no contradiction, Christ is just using an eastern style of teaching which is harder for western minds to make out.
Anyway, that's my take, for now. Seeing it this way, I don't see why Christ is necessarily trumping the ethic of using necessary force to help a woman being raped. Cause he may be actually addressing a self-interested retaliatory spirit rather than that spirit that would risk self-harm for another.
P.S. Clarification is in order, here. I would not say that Christ sanctioned any and every intervention to prevent a wrong to another. E.g., if I am to tolerate certain abuses such as a slap to the face, then I would think it wrong for me to use any force to prevent that tolerable abuse to another--unless perhaps it involves those who are helpless like children.
But serious abuses, like rape, that a person could selflessly elicit aid from the government for, might be legitimate cases for such intervention. I say selfless, because a rapist will most probably rape others as well. Whereas one who slaps someone is typically doing so for a specific offense (real or imagined) of a specific person.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/8/2006 11:51:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 7/10/2006 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, finally found some time to compile some ante-nicene quotes relevant to non-resistance outside the context of war. Again, for the sake of brevity, these are from the 2nd century rather than 2nd and 3rd (1st century references are entirely within the New Testament, such as Matthew 5:38-41, and Romans 12:19-21). The numbers following the name after the quote are: 1) their location within "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" in the edition edited by Roberts and Donaldson (this uses a different translation than that present on newadvent.org or ccel.org , so a bit of footwork may be required to track down the context if you don't have access to Roberts' and Donaldson's edition). 2) the date (approximate) of the writing.
They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends. They do good to their enemies. (Aristides, 9.276 - 125ad)
We will not ask you to punish our accusers. Their present wickedness is sufficient punishment. (Justin Martyr, 1.165 - 160ad)
We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Not only that, but to those who strike us on the on side of the face, we have learned to offer the other side also. (Athenagoras, 2.129 - 175ad)
He commanded [His followers] ... not only not to strike others, but even, when they themselves are struck, to present the other cheek ... [He commanded them] not only not to injure their neighbors, nor to do them any evil, but also, when they are dealt with wickedly, to be long-suffering. (Irenaeus, 1.408 - 180ad)
The philosophers will then with propriety be taken up in a friendly exposure, ... but not in the manner of avenging ourselves on our detractors. Rather, it will be for the purpose of their conversion. For vengeance is far from being the case with those persons who have learned to bless those who curse. (Clement of Alexandria, 2.347 - 195ad)
The spiritual man never cherishes resentment or harbors a grudge against anyone - even though deserving of hatred for his conduct. (Clement of Alexandria, 2.540 - 195ad)
Paul does not merely describe the spiritual man as being characterized by suffering wrong, rather than doing wrong. Rather, Paul teaches that a Christian does not keep count of injuries. For Paul does not allow him even to pray against the man who has done wrong to him. For he knows that the Lord expressed commanded us to pray for our enemies. (Clement of Alexandria, 2.548 - 195ad)
Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins. (Clement of Alexandria, 2.548 - 195ad)
Hippias [a pagan] is put to death for laying plots against the state. No Christian ever attempted such a thing on behalf of his brethren, even when persecution was scattering them abroad with every atrocity. (Tertullian, 3.51 - 195ad)
If dragged to trial, he does not resist. (Tertullian, 3.110 - 197ad)
The practice of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword. It was to pluck out "eye for eye", and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. However, the practice of the new law points to clemency. (Tertullian, 3.154 - 197ad)
Men of old were used to requiring "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" and to repay evil for evil, with usury! ... But after Christ has supervened and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to attack others even with words, nor to merely say "fool," without danger of the judgment. ... Christ says, "Love your enemies and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors." (Tertullian, 3.711 - 200ad)
If someone attempts to provoke you by physical violence, the admonition of the Lord is at hand. He says, "To him who strikes you on the face, turn the other cheek also." Let outrageousness be worn out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, joined with pain and scorn, it will receive a heavier one from the Lord. (Tertullian, 3.712 - 200ad)
For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order ... The commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil. (Tertullian, 3.713 - 200ad) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pentz
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59
| Posted 8/5/2006 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Here it is everyone:
I know there are some Christians who believe that war and their participation in it are morally wrong. While I respect their views and must allow them to follow their consciences, I do not believe the Bible teaches pacifism.
-Pat Robertson (Answers to 200 of Life's most Probing Questions, Bantom Books, 1984) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/10/2006 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | If dragged to trial, he does not resist. (Tertullian, 3.110 - 197ad)
But if an angel opens your prison door, GET OUT!! I'm skeptical of the hyper-literalness that people use for the Sermon on the Mount. It makes the actual history of the bible hard to explain--like Peter taking his occasion to escape. In the Sermon, Christ says ask and you shall receive. But he also says seek and you shall find. If asking alone got us everything we asked for, there is no point in seeking. There's no way I can take "ask and you shall receive" hyper-literally and make sense of it. Same with "give to him who asks" and "resist not evil." They have a context that constrains the extent of their application.
The broader context is Christ's own statement that he was not come to abolish the Law since not one jot or tittle of it was to pass away until heaven and earth passed away. Those words, IMO, rule out the view that the Sermon was meant to be understood as an effectual abrogation of the Torah. Accordingly, Christ used the Law to interpret the Law (on divorce for example). And, for him (and Paul), the primary law that served as a hermeneutical control to all the others was the law of love.
Taken this way, Christ may be simply showing that the avenging role of the state that Moses sanctioned was a role for the greater good. It was not meant to sanction personal vengeance or a vengeful attitude obsessed with petty wrongs by others.
Paul makes a similar point when he says it's better to be defrauded by your brother than to shame the church by taking him to court. All kinds of things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. Accordingly, it would be absurd to want the state to retaliate against every slap to the cheek and similar petty injuries. Such a state would be tyrannical.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/10/2006 9:26:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/10/2006 10:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: Why should it be this way? Why isn't personal vengeance for the greater good?
Jeff: I think it's not a coincidence that Genesis talks about Lamech bragging about his vengeance (vs. Cain's) and the earth becoming filled with violence, followed by God's allowance for capital punishment. I assume that latter passage is allowing for a communally designated mode of administering capital punishment (i.e., a state administration) to deter violence, in contrast to the personal vengeance that had prevailed theretofore. I may be wrong, but I know of no other way to make sense of Christ's statement about the Law.
So, though I can't prove that the existence of the State provides for a greater good, Paul says it is and the other passages seem to imply that it is. So if scripture says it and my experience doesn't contradict it, I have no reason to doubt it.
Zach: Why shouldn't state vengeance and vengeful attitude be spoken against?
Jeff: Because Christ seems to be saying that he's not trumping the Law, but rather affirming it in its true meaning. The Law allowed for state punishment as did Genesis (post-flood), seemingly. Otherwise, I have no idea what Christ is saying there.
Zach: Is personal vengeance somehow justified if it is adopted by the state?
Jeff: No, because the Torah never sanctioned personal vengeance. The right of the state to avenge is delegated by God expressly (at least Israel's state). The OT never says God ever delegated the right of personal vengeance, unless the Gen. passage does that (which is equivocal). And the state has no authority to delegate that right any more than Congress has the right to delegate law-making power to the executive branch under our constituition. All rights come from God, ultimately.
Zach: If dragged to trial, do not resist. If let out, then walk away. What exactly is wrong with that? Why would he not get out?
Jeff: I was alluding to the problem of hyper-literalness. A hyper-literal view of the Sermon would mean that we HAVE to turn the other cheek when slapped in every instance. I would say that Peter's walking away and the apostle's fleeing persecution demonstrate that Christ doesn't necessarily mean to always turn the other cheek literally. He's just trying to make a point in an eastern style of teaching, I suspect.
That point, I think, is this: It's better to stand and take a beating WITHOUT attempting escape than to avenge yourself. But in the same way that escape is allowed (contrary to Christ's literal words), I think helping a woman being raped is allowed. But we should use the minimal force necessary to defend the woman. And luckily, these cases are rare, anyway. Thankfully, I've never experienced one.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/10/2006 10:20:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/11/2006 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello!
On the John the Baptist question: why is it important? If John was an OT era prophet, then wouldn't his teaching be essentially Old Covenant rather than New Covenant (Lk. 16:16)? I don't know anyone who argues that the Old Covenant was pacifist; that's absurd. The question of Jesus' teaching, of course, is much more important.
But leaving aside for a moment specific arguments about how to interpret these passages, it seems to me that both the pacifist and non-pacifist view have significant problems and seem counter-intuitive in some cases. OK, if I see a woman about to be raped, it seems very counter-intuitive morally to say that I shouldn't use force to stop it from happening. Fair enough.
But the problem is that the other view seems to be just as counter-intuitive in other cases. If there is just one would-be rapist, and he decides to pull a gun or use deadly force, then I suppose it seems reasonable for me to respond by trying to kill him first (let's assume there's no practical way for me to disable him otherwise). Now suppose there are a bunch of would-be rapists all coming at us with guns. I suppose we should try and shoot them too. But now suppose that there is one innocent person, perhaps a relative of theirs, amongst them, and we can't shoot them without significant risk of killing that innocent person accidentally. But we want to protect a whole bunch of people, so I suppose we should shoot even though the one innocent person could be killed. But perhaps by using a gun we are lowering our risk of success and endangering those we are trying to protect, so maybe we should use a missile. This might of course kill more innocent people on the other side but the benefits in protecting the ones being attacked here outweigh that, so less innocent suffering all told. But one person acting by themselves is not going to be able to fire enough missiles, so maybe we should create powerful central governments to build up militaries so that we can recruit a whole lot of people to go out and fire missiles. But then maybe the enemies will develop nuclear bombs so we ought to put a whole lot of money into developing them ourselves. But then since we've got them it might be better to use them since that will involve less risk to our own armies and yield a quicker victory. And so forth, and so on.
I don't know, but all of the above seems to me to follow from the starting point, and by the time you get to the end it seems like a really, really bad idea. I guess my question is, where do you draw the line, and on what basis, and how do you respond to the criticism that wherever you draw the line, you entail the risk of failing to protect innocents in the same way that someone who is a pacifist and doesn't stop a rape fails to protect an innocent?
By the way - jefscott - sorry if I've asked you this before - but what is your view on lying? That is, do you think lying is ever permissible (as opposed to truthfully refusing to disclose). This is for me another big obstacle to any kind of acceptance of war, because war intrinsically involves deception. Indeed, even self-defence on the individual level involves deception - if you're fighting a rapist, you try to convince him you're about to hit him with a left hook when really you're planning on a kick, or whatever.
But I agree that the use of force seems very plausible when we're talking at the individual or small local level. It's just that it doesn't seem quite so plausible once the principles involved are followed further onto larger scales.
Another interesting question - if force is sometimes permissible, do you think that pre-emption ever permissible? If I believe that person X is about to rape a woman, but they haven't actually made any move to do so, may I take them out? Or do I always have to wait until they make their move? Surely pre-emption can be justified on the same basis as above - that it will protect more innocents, that it increases our likelihood of success and hence reduces the risk of innocents suffering. So then you have the whole makings of pre-emptive warfare.
In war, there is only one measure of success. and that is victory. Everything goes to the victors. Similarly, there is only one real tangible failure, and that is defeat. This fact means that moral considerations will always go down the gurgler, because the stakes are so high. If you fight with some kind of moral standards and you lose because they hamper you, you are probably worse off than if you'd just not fought at all.
The other thing about all this is that we have to keep in mind how self-serving, even unconsciously, all humans are. Suppose that I take as a principle, "I should stand up for myself and not be a door mat". That seems a reasonable principle in many ways. But because we are so self-deluded and self-serving, there is a high likelihood that if I hold that principle I will in fact use it to justify my own domination, aggression and trying to get my own way, even if in theory it needn't mean that. It's just that we aren't capable of honestly putting such principles into action. Similarly, while the use of force and pre-emption might seem OK in theory, in practice if we hold to them we can end up - quite unconsciously - basically using them as a justification to get our own way or to release our buried frustrations or whatever. However, if we hold to the principle "I should never use force", I'm not going to be susceptible to that problem.
This leads to another possible conclusion: perhaps warfare is acceptable sometimes, but only when the judgment to go to war is made by someone who is perfect, i.e. not a human.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/11/2006 8:37:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/11/2006 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello, HB!! Good to hear from you. Hope all is going well down South. My main concern is the hermeneutical argument. Cause I pretty much agree with you and the others posting on all the problems of the practicality of the issue. In fact, the one case I bring up--that of the women screaming for help in the city--seems to assume that a number of folks would come to her aid, most likely overwhelming the rapist. So that case is easier to see. My main contention is that there is no way to theoretically rule out the use of all force. But I doubt, for example, that there has ever been a just war (except for what God commanded). Humans are, indeed, swift to shed blood!!
I have no problems with your practical argument. I can totally understand why a person would think the factors involved in this kind of decision-making can be overwhelming to a finite human mind. But when the death of ones child is at stake (or something similarly tragic), I think we ought to be less than judgmental to some use of force unless a compelling (beyond reasonable doubt) hermeneutical argument can be made for radical passivism.
On the other hand, if I take the other problematic command, "give to him who asks," the difficulty of unconditioned literalism is more apparent. Let's say I walk upon a small crowd and find that there are two guys in a fight and one is beating the daylights out of the other and eventually renders him unconscious. Suppose I'm holding a lead pipe that I was going to use for some task. The "winner" asks me for the lead pipe. Do I give him the pipe to submit to the statement of Christ? I would say no. I think the context doesn't warrant me in taking the verse that way.
Similarly, I think there are rare occasions when deception is OK. I think I remember a case (maybe not!) where David acted like a crazy man to avoid being killed. I see nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, we should never deny Christ no matter what the consequences are. But I, personally, know of no situation in my 30 years of conversion where lying would have been justified. Half-truths?--maybe, but even those would be rare. The fact that Paul says speak truth to our neighbor because we are members of one another suggests to me that truth-telling is good because of its consequences. Otherwise, I would think that being members of one another would be irrelevant to the obligation of truth-telling.
I guess for me it gets down to this. We are told to be fully-persuaded in all things. It's easy for me to see how a person could not see radical passivism as obligatory from the scriptures or reason (since I don't). Consequently, since I can't see a compelling hermeneutical argument for radical passivism, if a person intervenes in behalf of his/her own kids, I would not judge them as being in error unless it was obvious that they were being clearly over-forceful to defend them.
In the meanwhile, I trust that God won't allow me to be tested beyond what I'm able to justly discern. Similarly, with deception--one must be fully persuaded that a greater good is served by deception before deceiving. Such cases will be rare, indeed. And God knows the heart. So if there is any doubt, we should err to the side of non-violence and truthfulness.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/11/2006 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | On the question of Jesus and the Law I can't follow your line of thought. Two things: First, I don't think that Jesus kept the Law in a strictly literal sense. I kept to the spirit of it, but one main message that he preached was how unimportant strict literal keeping of the Law is. Second, if Jesus did teach literal keeping of the Law, I would probably not be a Christian anyway. Consequentialist for-the-greater-good morality is ascetically unpleasant to me. A god who kills children "for the greater good" is too weak and uncreative. How is that god different from the idols the Israelites worshipped. They sacrificed their children to make the land furtile so that they could survive. If the Jewish/Christian god is someone who sacrifices the weak to support the strong, then he is a god I'll do without.
"I was alluding to the problem of hyper-literalness. A hyper-literal view of the Sermon would mean that we HAVE to turn the other cheek when slapped in every instance. I would say that Peter's walking away and the apostle's fleeing persecution demonstrate that Christ doesn't necessarily mean to always turn the other cheek literally."
No. Under hyper-literalism Peter's walking away has nothing to do with being slapped. You would have to do something very non-literalistic to get where you are trying to go. You would have to invent a general principal of which turning the other cheek is only one instance. This principal would also need to encompass a command to stay in open jail cells. If you find anyone promoting such a general principal, then this criticism applies.
This person, however, is not me. I do seek to find general principals in Jesus' teaching. So far, none of these preclude the walking out of open prison cells. I don't think that I have it all figured out, but my working principal is something like: when only the roles of persecutor and victim are available, choose to be the victim. This does not mean that I need to go looking for chances to get myself crucified or thrown in jail.
The problem with this ethic is that it requires us to release control over certain situations and trust God to be more creative and powerful than us. The problem with an ethic of justifiable violence is that it requires us to act as though God cannot be trusted to creatively and powerfully intervene. That and Jesus letting himself be crucified while his people were in desparate need makes no sense. If violence was ever justified, it was in Jesus' time. Jesus had all the criteria for a just war (in fact he is the only one ever to have all the criteria). He had a just cause (if the justifiable ethic is right), the ability to use comparitive force, legitimate authority, the right intention, the certainty of success, he had already used peaceful means, and it was a time of last resort (Jesus spoke of the imminent chaos that would come to Jerusalem). Jesus had the perfect opportunity. We don't. "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."
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 8/11/2006 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: On the question of Jesus and the Law I can't follow your line of thought. Two things: First, I don't think that Jesus kept the Law in a strictly literal sense. I kept to the spirit of it, but one main message that he preached was how unimportant strict literal keeping of the Law is.
Jeff: But he shows how that was entailed in the Law itself. The priests profaned the Sabbath to do their duty. The Pharisees understood that much and he used that logic to explain his understanding of the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he was annuling the Mosaic Law. He was just showing that the technical violation of the sabbath by the priests was just one example of that kind of case that is required to properly understand the Sabbath law.
Zach: Second, if Jesus did teach literal keeping of the Law, I would probably not be a Christian anyway. Consequentialist for-the-greater-good morality is ascetically unpleasant to me. A god who kills children "for the greater good" is too weak and uncreative. How is that god different from the idols the Israelites worshipped. They sacrificed their children to make the land furtile so that they could survive. If the Jewish/Christian god is someone who sacrifices the weak to support the strong, then he is a god I'll do without.
Jeff: I understand your sentiments, but I live in a world where natural evil has the exact same implications to me. God could stop all of it if sheer power is the only consideration. So if you can explain natural evil to me in such a way that it solves all theodicy issues, I'll gladly reconsider. Until then, I can't let those sentiments dictate my hermeneutics.
Zach: No. Under hyper-literalism Peter's walking away has nothing to do with being slapped. You would have to do something very non-literalistic to get where you are trying to go. You would have to invent a general principal of which turning the other cheek is only one instance. This principal would also need to encompass a command to stay in open jail cells. If you find anyone promoting such a general principal, then this criticism applies.
Jeff: It was probably a bad example anyway. Maybe I misread that church father. My point was that I don't think escaping while being led to trial is anymore wrong in all cases than turning the other cheek, literally, is always mandatory. Do you think Christ meant for us to literally turn the cheek every time we're slapped, with no attempt of escape ever being justified under any circumstance? If so, how would you apply that to other cases where escape would save us from harm? Do we always offer up body parts for more abuse?
Zach: I don't think that I have it all figured out, but my working principal is something like: when only the roles of persecutor and victim are available, choose to be the victim. This does not mean that I need to go looking for chances to get myself crucified or thrown in jail.
Jeff: I don't think I have it all figured out either. That's why I wouldn't say someone who protects his children while making an honest attempt to minimize force is sinning. I just don't have that absolute certainty.
Zach: The problem with an ethic of justifiable violence is that it requires us to act as though God cannot be trusted to creatively and powerfully intervene.
Jeff: Again, natural evil already creates that problem for me. God is not acting powerfully to save infants from suffering from natural evil. I don't see the difference in principle. One could argue that God can't do it. But Christ said with God all things are possible. It's harder for me to resolve this stuff than it is for you. So I can't comfortably say people are sinning in all circumstances where force is used.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/11/2006 4:36:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/12/2006 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: Consequentialist for-the-greater-good morality is ascetically unpleasant to me.
Jeff: Let me add some clarification, here. I don't think God is utilitarian with respect to humans. I think the greater good has to do with the ultimate purpose of creation. And I think that purpose is Christ's glorification. So I think somehow that purpose is what explains why God acts and restrains from action. So the fact that Christ says God's vengeance will ill-affect infants implies, to my mind, that God chooses to glorify Christ at the infants' expense. I see no other way to explain it. And maybe there will be some kind of post-mortem solution to some of the injustice that I'm not privy to.
But the bottom line is, God knows that insane evils will continue and yet He chooses to tolerate it instead of stopping it now. How do you explain that apart from God's teleological satisfaction? It can't be divine impotence, can it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/12/2006 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But he shows how that was entailed in the Law itself. The priests profaned the Sabbath to do their duty. The Pharisees understood that much and he used that logic to explain his understanding of the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he was annuling the Mosaic Law. He was just showing that the technical violation of the sabbath by the priests was just one example of that kind of case that is required to properly understand the Sabbath law.
Zach: Agreed. It seems to me that there is some general principal even behind the Mosaic Law. I don't however think that the Mosaic Law is God's law in every case. For example, the Israelites are told to love the foreigners in the land in one breath, and in the next they are told to wipe them of the face of the earth. The Torah is the compilation of many differnent (and often contradictory) strands. Little if any of it was actual written by Moses. I believe that God was working with this diverse mix of people that eventually became Israel. But I don't believe that the Torah is the pure word of God. It is a collection of different histories of how different people viewed God to be working. It is valuable for what it teaches us about God, but it teaches us just as much about the people who wrote it.
So, I don't think Jesus literally kept or broke the Mosaic Law. How could he do either? It is Mosaic and mosaic. There is the holiness code and the deuteronomic code. Editors living relatively not that long before Jesus tried to smooth all the different pieces into one story, but the evidence of the mosaic origins of the Mosaic Law are still visible.
Jeff: I understand your sentiments, but I live in a world where natural evil has the exact same implications to me. God could stop all of it if sheer power is the only consideration. So if you can explain natural evil to me in such a way that it solves all theodicy issues, I'll gladly reconsider. Until then, I can't let those sentiments dictate my hermeneutics.
Zach: Why not?
Jeff: It was probably a bad example anyway. Maybe I misread that church father. My point was that I don't think escaping while being led to trial is anymore wrong in all cases than turning the other cheek, literally, is always mandatory. Do you think Christ meant for us to literally turn the cheek every time we're slapped, with no attempt of escape ever being justified under any circumstance? If so, how would you apply that to other cases where escape would save us from harm? Do we always offer up body parts for more abuse?
Zach: I also do not think escaping while being led to trial is wrong. But when you say "led," you don't give them impression that Tertullian does when he says "dragged." I think Christ did mean for us to literally turn the other cheek when we are struck. Running away after being hit only communicates cowardice. Cowardice is bad. This doesn't mean that we should seek to be slapped in the first place. We should not seek to make eachother stumble. Generally speaking we should not provoke eachother merely for the sake of it. There are times when the truth should be told, and this is usually provocative (a scandal or stumbling stone). We should be willing to sacrifice ourselves, but we should not develop a victim complex.
Jeff: I don't think I have it all figured out either. That's why I wouldn't say someone who protects his children while making an honest attempt to minimize force is sinning. I just don't have that absolute certainty.
Zach: Neither would I. "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." Maybe even the genocidal Israelites or Germans or Americans may have really been acting out of there best sense of right and wrong. If someone seeks out truth and then acts on it to the best of their ability, how can they be considered guilty. Even Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Jeff: Again, natural evil already creates that problem for me. God is not acting powerfully to save infants from suffering from natural evil. I don't see the difference in principle. One could argue that God can't do it. But Christ said with God all things are possible. It's harder for me to resolve this stuff than it is for you. So I can't comfortably say people are sinning in all circumstances where force is used.
Zach: Yeah but shouldn't God do something to save those infants suffering from natural evil? If he is doing something that we cannot consider anything but bad, then why do we worship him? My take on it is that suffering itself is not necessarily a bad thing, and that God will eventually set things right. Since I believe that he will one day set it all right, I believe that it is safe for me to sacrifice. The whole of a justifiable violence ethic seems to rest on the idea that there is something of highest value that we cannot afford to sacrifice. That thing may be freedom or justice or happiness or religious rituals or anything. But whatever it is, the time to defend it is now. We cannot afford to irresponsibly let it be taken while relying on some idealistic pipe-dream of God coming and making it all ok. You'll never hear a politician arguing for the justice of a war say that it actually doesn't matter if we win or lose because God will win in the end. It would take the wind out of his own sails. To argue for any sort of coercion we must amputate our trust in the ultimate victory of God. To make the case we must be convinced that there is something significant on the line. We can't fight to win a world if we already believe that "To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it."
Jeff: But the bottom line is, God knows that insane evils will continue and yet He chooses to tolerate it instead of stopping it now. How do you explain that apart from God's teleological satisfaction? It can't be divine impotence, can it?
Zach: At least for now, I believe that suffering is not inherently bad. Without a measure of genuine suffering we are not truly alive. I believe that God will set things right. But to do so is to bring the end. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." As frustrating and unsatisfying as this verse is, it's the best I've got.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 8/12/2006 5:00:46 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/12/2006 5:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: Agreed. It seems to me that there is some general principal even behind the Mosaic Law. I don't however think that the Mosaic Law is God's law in every case. For example, the Israelites are told to love the foreigners in the land in one breath, and in the next they are told to wipe them of the face of the earth.
Jeff: Not sure what verses you're talking about. And without knowing them, I have no reason to believe Christ wouldn't have resolved them like he did the Sabbath "contradictions." With what little Christ said about the scriptures he seemed to demonstrate a high regard for them.
Jeff: I understand your sentiments, but I live in a world where natural evil has the exact same implications to me. God could stop all of it if sheer power is the only consideration. So if you can explain natural evil to me in such a way that it solves all theodicy issues, I'll gladly reconsider. Until then, I can't let those sentiments dictate my hermeneutics.
Zach: Why not?
Jeff: Because it seems hypocritical, to me. I don't see a difference in principle between what the bible says God does to infants in the Flood and the Exodous and what He doesn't do for them everyday to prevent harm. I have to assume He is being wise in both cases. And that He has perogatives that I'm in no position to question.
Zach: I think Christ did mean for us to literally turn the other cheek when we are struck. Running away after being hit only communicates cowardice. Cowardice is bad.
Jeff: I agree that is sometimes the case. And I would agree that availing the other cheek (not literally turning it) would be proper in those cases. But Christ told the apostles to flee to other cities when persecuted, so I don't think he had some hard fast rule in mind in that passage.
Zach: We should be willing to sacrifice ourselves, but we should not develop a victim complex.
Jeff: Agreed. But I see the idea of sacrifice typically having to do with suffering "with Christ" and "for righteousness sake." Not just being passive to the will of predator-like thugs. That's the difference I see in this issue of non-coercion.
Jeff: I don't think I have it all figured out either. That's why I wouldn't say someone who protects his children while making an honest attempt to minimize force is sinning. I just don't have that absolute certainty.
Zach: Neither would I. "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." Maybe even the genocidal Israelites or Germans or Americans may have really been acting out of there best sense of right and wrong. If someone seeks out truth and then acts on it to the best of their ability, how can they be considered guilty. Even Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Jeff: There's a difference in saying forgive the ignorant one, and being unpersuaded yourself. I don't think that a person who defends his/her kids is ignorant. Because I can't come to that conclusion from reason or scripture. What I hear many pacifists saying is that they know the use of force is wrong in all cases. They may be tolerant, however, to those who use it, though.
Zach: Yeah but shouldn't God do something to save those infants suffering from natural evil? If he is doing something that we cannot consider anything but bad, then why do we worship him? My take on it is that suffering itself is not necessarily a bad thing, and that God will eventually set things right. Since I believe that he will one day set it all right, I believe that it is safe for me to sacrifice.
Jeff: If we are to assume a future post-mortem "correction," then the Exodous and the Conquest don't seem any more problematic to me than natural evil, so long as God does what He does as a kind of temporal "corrective." And that's just how they're portrayed in scripture--including the days of vengeance that Christ predicted that will result in suffering to infants. I don't see how the command to kill infants is any different than performing actions that one knows will result in the death of infants (like a Flood). Both are intentional and are presumably justified on "big picture" grounds.
It's relevant to me that God doesn't have to act in this world at all. He could just wait and do all judgement in "the end," thereby sparing infants all that collateral damage. But Christ doesn't seem to believe God does that. He seems to believe God caused a Flood and that He would, in the "days of vengeance," bring great calamity on the earth that would result in the harm and death of infants. That's why I can't get around this stuff. God is not impotent. He chooses to do things this way. And Christ seems to have no theoretical problem with it.
Zach: The whole of a justifiable violence ethic seems to rest on the idea that there is something of highest value that we cannot afford to sacrifice. That thing may be freedom or justice or happiness or religious rituals or anything. But whatever it is, the time to defend it is now. We cannot afford to irresponsibly let it be taken while relying on some idealistic pipe-dream of God coming and making it all ok. You'll never hear a politician arguing for the justice of a war say that it actually doesn't matter if we win or lose because God will win in the end. It would take the wind out of his own sails. To argue for any sort of coercion we must amputate our trust in the ultimate victory of God. To make the case we must be convinced that there is something significant on the line. We can't fight to win a world if we already believe that "To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it."
Jeff: This argument assumes that God would not authorize civil government for the purposing of extending the longevity of the post-Flood world. That's exactly what it seems like God was saying in Genesis, to me, though. We are told that the world that was left to personal vengeance became so violent that the Flood was "necessitated." So God introduces government to make more likely a longer continuance of "this heavens and earth." And that's just the way Paul describes government--as a deterrence to evil.
Zach: At least for now, I believe that suffering is not inherently bad. Without a measure of genuine suffering we are not truly alive. I believe that God will set things right. But to do so is to bring the end. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." As frustrating and unsatisfying as this verse is, it's the best I've got.
Jeff: I would say that an unnecessarily high degree of suffering is evil, but not necessarily moral evil. That's why we use the term "natural" evil. Suffering, at least the degree of it experienced in this world, is what, to me, is to pass away with the heavens and the earth. But to the extent that suffering is necessary for basic learning or proper development, it is not vain. As I understand scripture (and philosophy, even), it is vain, futile suffering (suffering with no real point) that is tragic. But that's what much of natural evil is.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/12/2006 6:08:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/13/2006 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I have to assume He is being wise in both cases. And that He has perogatives that I'm in no position to question.
Zach: Why do you assume he is being wise, if he is presented as making unwise choices? Why do you assume he is good and strong when the evidence points to his being either bad or weak? If you have to resort to belief in his goodness despite what the Bible shows him doing, then why does the Bible still hold such sway over your beliefs? To me, I see Jesus. He is good. He talks about bringing a sword and dividing households, but I intepret this in light of the division he brought during his natural life. It is division brought about by the divided responses to his message and not directly by Jesus himself. He knew division would happen, but that division is not the direct consequence of his action but of their choices. When God intervenes there is division, strife, and suffering. That doesn't mean that God causes it.
Jeff: But I see the idea of sacrifice typically having to do with suffering "with Christ" and "for righteousness sake." Not just being passive to the will of predator-like thugs. That's the difference I see in this issue of non-coercion.
Zach: Jesus was the victim of predator-like thugs. Jesus suffered and rose again to show that these thugs are not right to kill their victims, no matter how they seek to justify themselves. He even forgives us thugs for his death and the death of those he identifies with, and in doing so offers us life. He identifies with the victim in the psalm, "They hated me without cause." Jesus' death satisfies the need for retribution. Not God's need, but ours. He shows that need for the satanic desire that it is. It is the satanic desire that would have him simply bow down in exchange for the perfect for-the-greater-good consequences. It would have us simply take the life of one evil would-be murderer to secure our family's safety and security. When I say "satanic," I still recognize that it is much better than rampant personal vengeance. But my use of the word "satanic" reflects my belief that it is fundamentally and qualitatively opposed to the kingdom of God. Instead of calling down a legion of angels and setting the world right, he shows us how to take up a cross. If for-the-greater-good was the way Jesus worked, then why didn't he set it right? Reconciling Jesus' action with consequentialism takes a lot of ad hoc assumption if not complete blind faith.
The Old Testament seems to justify violence if it is done on a large scale instead of a personal scale. But the truth is that corporate vengeance is rarely more just than personal vengeance. I admit that corporate eye-for-an-eye is better than personal life-(or family)-for-an-eye. It is a step in the right direction. It is a step toward ending the cycle. But Jesus offers a different way. It is a way that could have been expected judging by the trajectory of the Old Testament, but it is distinct from the Torah and historical matterial. Actually I see a lot of Jesus in the prophets, especially later Isaiah and Jeremiah. For me this is the richest reading of the Bible.
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 8/13/2006 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I have to assume He is being wise in both cases. And that He has perogatives that I'm in no position to question.
Zach: Why do you assume he is being wise, if he is presented as making unwise choices? Why do you assume he is good and strong when the evidence points to his being either bad or weak? If you have to resort to belief in his goodness despite what the Bible shows him doing, then why does the Bible still hold such sway over your beliefs?
Jeff: Again, whoever God is, He is the one who presides over all the natural and moral evils of the world. He could stop the world but doesn't. Even if God is not the god of the judaeo-christian bible, it still seems reasonable to suppose that He knows insane evils will continue. And yet He lets it keep going. I have no other way to explain that except that He will eventually receive some teleological satisfaction for His longsuffering. So the bible doesn't create any new problematic issues for theodicy as far as I can tell. Somehow and someway, God is accomplishing some end, and we do well to get on board. I simply believe that the bible helps us know how to get on board.
Zach: To me, I see Jesus. He is good. He talks about bringing a sword and dividing households, but I intepret this in light of the division he brought during his natural life. It is division brought about by the divided responses to his message and not directly by Jesus himself. He knew division would happen, but that division is not the direct consequence of his action but of their choices.
Jeff: Agreed. 100%.
Zach: When God intervenes there is division, strife, and suffering. That doesn't mean that God causes it.
Jeff: Here's where I disagree. A Flood is God causing suffering--even for babies. Same with the "days of vengeance" Christ foretold. And this is the point. It's not just that Christ was good. Presumably he was wise. But he didn't seem to have any theodicy problems with those issues. Meph has said something similar. But Meph just doesn't think Christ thought things through as far as we have since, I guess--I'm not sure just how he explains it.
I can't accept that kind of thinking. Most people who have problems with the OT do so immediately. There is no great analysis and reflection that causes them to finally see the problematic nature of the OT. I have to assume Christ had the same moral common sense that we have. And yet he seemed to be untroubled about a Flood that resulted in the suffering and deaths of infants. He could have wondered why God didn't (or wouldn't in his future) use more power or creativity to save the innocent babies, but we don't see that. He trusted God completely. I take that trust to be part of his example that we are to follow.
Zach: Jesus was the victim of predator-like thugs.
Jeff: Yes, but Christ came to die. It was a mission that he had to fulfill. So to say that we are to emulate him in that respect is like saying we are to emulate his unmarried state. Some things that apply to Christ are not obligatory for all. We can only try to discern what it was he was trying to say and go from there.
Zach: Jesus' death satisfies the need for retribution. Not God's need, but ours. He shows that need for the satanic desire that it is.
Jeff: I agree that personally-motivated retribution is wrong in all cases. When the state renders vengeance, though, it is only justified in doing so as a deterrence to evil--and even then, only because God delegated that role to them. Any state that presumes the authority on its own to render vengeance is dead wrong. It only has that right from God. And it only has it as a deterrence to evil and promotion of the good--not a personal need for retribution.
And just as parents have a God-given authority over their children which is all too frequently mis-used, so does the state mis-use their God-given authority. And parents often act with the presumption that their authority doesn't come from God. That doesn't negate the fact that the authority has been delegated, though. Nor does their mis-use of that authority mean that the world would be better off with no such authority.
But whereas parental authority was given from the beginning, governmental authority was delegated because of how the world turned out after the Fall. So civil government is not an inherent design feature of the world in the same way that family government is. It is more radically contingent.
Zach: Instead of calling down a legion of angels and setting the world right, he shows us how to take up a cross.
Jeff: This, too, is one of those cases where we can't exactly emulate Christ. He told his apostles to flee persecution. Christ came to die. That is not the case for us, necessarily.
Zach: If for-the-greater-good was the way Jesus worked, then why didn't he set it right?
Jeff: As I said previously, I don't think the greater-good has to do with the greater good of creatures. It is not a utilitarian kind of thing. I think the good is Christ's glorification. In John, Christ says the Father was about to glorify him. Now, without scripture, we wouldn't even have a clue as to how his death glorified him. But we have enough information, IMO, to infer that whatever God is working and tolerating, it will somehow be for Christ's glory. But I am not privy to all the details of the plan and probably wouldn't understand it if I was.
In short, for all I know, God authorized civil government only to increase the longevity of the world, per His longsuffering. I don't assume at all that the deterrence of evil the government is to affect is necessarily for a greater-good of creatures, per se. In fact, since God didn't authorize government before the Flood, I think it's safe to say that its institution is probably not for the greater good of creatures, per se. Unless, i.e., we can think of a reason why it was for the greater-good of the pre-Flood world not to have civil government. But I hope you get my point about what I think the ultimate good is, per God's purpose.
Zach: Actually I see a lot of Jesus in the prophets, especially later Isaiah and Jeremiah. For me this is the richest reading of the Bible.
Jeff: When Christ says not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law OR the prophets, I think he was saying that the prophets were simply calling the people to the Law, in its true meaning. The pharisees even professed to believe that much. But Christ said they didn't believe it, despite their profession.
But that doesn't mean I think you and I are to keep the Law. I'm just trying to understand the gospels as plausibly as possible in their own historical context.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/13/2006 5:05:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/13/2006 10:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Again, whoever God is, He is the one who presides over all the natural and moral evils of the world. He could stop the world but doesn't... ...So the bible doesn't create any new problematic issues for theodicy as far as I can tell.
Zach: This is a world view based on the Bible. Any problematic issues here are tied up in the Bible. Stories like the Flood and the Conquest.
Zach: When God intervenes there is division, strife, and suffering. That doesn't mean that God causes it.
Jeff: Here's where I disagree.
Zach: But you agree 100% that "he knew division would happen, but that division is not the direct consequence of his action but of their choices." So are you saying that God is responsible for my choices?
Jeff: A Flood is God causing suffering--even for babies.
Zach: I assume you are referring to Genesis. If so, which of the two contradictory Genesis Flood stories are you referring to? And why do you believe either one is true in the first place? I personally don't believe it happened the way either account claims. I am not convinced that God sent a flood. That Jesus refers to the story doesn't have much bearing, because he referred to the story of Jonah and the bulk of his teaching was done through fictional parables.
Jeff: Same with the "days of vengeance" Christ foretold.
Zach: But the suffering of these days is not necessarily the direct consequence of God's action. How can a person be accountable for choices he didn't make? I don't know Meph's take, but I believe that Jesus was God, knew he was God, and had all the abilities of God.
Jeff: And yet he seemed to be untroubled about a Flood that resulted in the suffering and deaths of infants. He could have wondered why God didn't (or wouldn't in his future) use more power or creativity to save the innocent babies, but we don't see that. He trusted God completely. I take that trust to be part of his example that we are to follow.
Zach: I believe that this is because Jesus was aware of the message of mercy that the flood stories are meant to teach. The flood sounds immoral to us today, because we have been affected by the kingdom of God. Obviously, at the time that the flood stories were first told, people had fewer qualms about genocide and mass murder. In such a context the evil aspects of the flood stories were overlooked and what was seen was the merciful aspects. It is the main message in both biblical accounts just as it is in the Gilgamesh account which the Bible copies and revises.
Jeff: Yes, but Christ came to die. It was a mission that he had to fulfill. So to say that we are to emulate him in that respect is like saying we are to emulate his unmarried state. Some things that apply to Christ are not obligatory for all. We can only try to discern what it was he was trying to say and go from there.
Zach: Jesus never told us to emulate his unmarried state. He did tell us that to be his disciple we must take up our cross and follow him. He also said that whoever loses his life for his sake will regain it. So, I don't think my line of thought is in danger of immitating Jesus to an absurd degree. We are however to imitate Jesus. Our imitation of him has something to do with his execution and voluntary sacrifice. Not his marital status (unless we can come up with some connection between singleness and public execution).
Jesus' mission is ours. We are to be in Christ. We are to walk in him, as he walked. We are to have his mind in us. We are to take up his cross. Whatever "his cross" symbolizes, that is what we are to take up. If "his cross" symbolizes the forgiveness of sins through sacrifice, then that is our calling. We are to be one with him as he is at one with the Father. At least that is what he said he wanted. Certainly, Jesus came to die. But he also called his followers to lay down their lives as he did.
"I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."
Paul wants to share in the sufferings that brought salvation. He wants to be like Christ in his atoning death.
Jeff: And just as parents have a God-given authority over their children which is all too frequently mis-used, so does the state mis-use their God-given authority.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Zach: I disagree with the idea that any fallen government has God-given legitiamate authority. And the book of Romans is very clear that the Christian's role is to submit to authorities.
Jeff: This, too, is one of those cases where we can't exactly emulate Christ. He told his apostles to flee persecution. Christ came to die. That is not the case for us, necessarily.
Zach: I disagree. He told the disciples to flee persecution. He fled persecution himself a few times. But the one saying of Jesus most often repeated in the gospels is his command to take up the cross and follow him. Of all the things he says in the gospels this is the most common. The central way we are to emulate Christ is in his death. Now, I don't believe that we must all get ourselves nailled to crosses in Palestine by men who speak Latin. But I do believe we must all live and walk in the way of Jesus, so that when circumstances like those of Jesus' life occur, we behave similarly.
Jeff: As I said previously, I don't think the greater-good has to do with the greater good of creatures. It is not a utilitarian kind of thing. I think the good is Christ's glorification. In John, Christ says the Father was about to glorify him. Now, without scripture, we wouldn't even have a clue as to how his death glorified him. But we have enough information, IMO, to infer that whatever God is working and tolerating, it will somehow be for Christ's glory. But I am not privy to all the details of the plan and probably wouldn't understand it if I was.
In short, for all I know, God authorized civil government only to increase the longevity of the world, per His longsuffering. I don't assume at all that the deterrence of evil the government is to affect is necessarily for a greater-good of creatures, per se. In fact, since God didn't authorize government before the Flood, I think it's safe to say that its institution is probably not for the greater good of creatures, per se. Unless, i.e., we can think of a reason why it was for the greater-good of the pre-Flood world not to have civil government. But I hope you get my point about what I think the ultimate good is, per God's purpose.
"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'""
Zach: Satan offered comfort, glory, and dominion. Jesus refused them all. If God wanted to glorify Jesus by any means necessary, he could have taken Satan up on this offer. For that matter he could have glorified himself right from the start. Another thing is that crucifixion is not very glorious. Neither is life as a peasant. I've read Piper and seen how he uses glory as the catch-all, whatever-action-we-ascribe-to-God-is-justified-because-it-glorifies-Jesus. Don't get me wrong; I don't think you are a Piper-guy or anything. But the glory justification works too well. You could use it to justify anything or anyone: Baal, Shiva, Pharaoh, Hitler, Pilate, Judas or Piper's picture of God. It is just too convenient an explanation.
Jeff: When Christ says not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law OR the prophets, I think he was saying that the prophets were simply calling the people to the Law, in its true meaning. The pharisees even professed to believe that much. But Christ said they didn't believe it, despite their profession.
Zach: I think this is an example of his laying things between the lines.
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;"
If you read Matthew 5:17-20 expecting Jesus to communicate a hidden message which would otherwise cause him trouble, then the passage reads very easily. Over and over (especially in Luke) Jesus will say something which the teachers of the Law will hear one way but will actually communicate something very different "for those who have ears to hear." Not once in the Matt 5:17-20 passage does Jesus explicitly say that his teaching is consistent with the Law and the Prophets. And when he speaks of keeping the least commandments he says "the least of these commandments," and he leaves the pronoun "these" without a referent. Of course those who thought of things in terms of the Law and Prophets would assume "these" refers to the previously mentioned Law and Prophets. I believe that assumption would be just fine with Jesus who was buying himself time. But Jesus was right; every jot and tittle is still there.
Jeff: But that doesn't mean I think you and I are to keep the Law. I'm just trying to understand the gospels as plausibly as possible in their own historical context.
Zach: Although we've come to different conclusions, I am also trying to do the same thing.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 8/13/2006 10:15:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/14/2006 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach, I have very little time and won't be able to respond again until the weekend. So I'm get to hit the high points briefly and I'll get back to it Friday or Saturday.
Jeff: Again, whoever God is, He is the one who presides over all the natural and moral evils of the world. He could stop the world but doesn't... ...So the bible doesn't create any new problematic issues for theodicy as far as I can tell.
Zach: This is a world view based on the Bible. Any problematic issues here are tied up in the Bible. Stories like the Flood and the Conquest.
Jeff: There are many people who find the problem of evil philosophically troubling independent of the bible. I agree with them. Because the refusal to use power to prevent evil has the same implications, to me, as does the use of power that results in evil. Both imply that some teleological satisfaction of the one with power is the controlling factor.
Jeff: Same with the "days of vengeance" Christ foretold.
Zach: But the suffering of these days is not necessarily the direct consequence of God's action. How can a person be accountable for choices he didn't make? I don't know Meph's take, but I believe that Jesus was God, knew he was God, and had all the abilities of God.
Jeff: I don't follow you, here. Christ seems, to me, to be saying that the calamity brought on the earth in those days is a direct result of God avenging. Yet he admits that infants will suffer from this calamity. Same with the Flood. That's why I have no reason to believe that Christ didn't accept the Flood account as written. Both historical events are analogous. That's why Christ uses the Flood as an analogy for the time he predicts.
Zach: Jesus never told us to emulate his unmarried state. He did tell us that to be his disciple we must take up our cross and follow him. He also said that whoever loses his life for his sake will regain it. So, I don't think my line of thought is in danger of immitating Jesus to an absurd degree. We are however to imitate Jesus. Our imitation of him has something to do with his execution and voluntary sacrifice. Not his marital status (unless we can come up with some connection between singleness and public execution).
Jeff: Explain why, then, Christ told the apostles to flee when persecuted. How does that work differently, given your view. That's what I can't see.
Jeff: And just as parents have a God-given authority over their children which is all too frequently mis-used, so does the state mis-use their God-given authority.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Jeff: So are parents not to exercise authority over their children? If not, what are they supposed to do? Christ said the apostles would judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Presumably that doesn't contradict that God has given all judgement to Christ.
Zach: Satan offered comfort, glory, and dominion. Jesus refused them all. If God wanted to glorify Jesus by any means necessary, he could have taken Satan up on this offer. For that matter he could have glorified himself right from the start. Another thing is that crucifixion is not very glorious. Neither is life as a peasant. I've read Piper and seen how he uses glory as the catch-all, whatever-action-we-ascribe-to-God-is-justified-because-it-glorifies-Jesus. Don't get me wrong; I don't think you are a Piper-guy or anything. But the glory justification works too well. You could use it to justify anything or anyone: Baal, Shiva, Pharaoh, Hitler, Pilate, Judas or Piper's picture of God. It is just too convenient an explanation.
Jeff: The alternative to my mind is that God takes pleasure at the expense of creatures, merely vs. accomplishes some benevolent end at the expense of creatures. In which case I'm totally befuddled about the nature of God.
Since love seeks not it's own, presumably, I have to believe that somehow all the evil that God tolerates is for the benefit of someone besides Himself. His tolerance doesn't seem to be to the benefit of all creatures. So I can only infer that it is Christ for whom God acts and restrains. But this is why, to me, we can never totally disprove the propriety of God's tolerance/allowance of natural and moral evils--or God's providential actions which entail, as side effects or means, the suffering and/or death of the innocent.
Jeff: But that doesn't mean I think you and I are to keep the Law. I'm just trying to understand the gospels as plausibly as possible in their own historical context.
Zach: Although we've come to different conclusions, I am also trying to do the same thing.
Jeff: Right. I just wanted to make sure you understood that I'm not advancing Law-keeping for us. Cause there are some people who do.
Zach: Not once in the Matt 5:17-20 passage does Jesus explicitly say that his teaching is consistent with the Law and the Prophets. And when he speaks of keeping the least commandments he says "the least of these commandments," and he leaves the pronoun "these" without a referent.
Jeff: It seems, to me, like Jesus is emphatically denying an abrogation of the Law. But if you get time, see this article and tell me what you think is wrong with the author's explanation of the referent: http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Matthew%205.17-20.pdf
Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/20/2006 2:52:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:27 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 |
|
|