Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 9:03 AM (GMT -6)

The entire law is summed up in "love God" and "love your neighbor". I believe that God has given us freedom to choose, because true love can only come from freedom. So, if I love my neighbor, shouldn't I follow God's example? Should I force another person to do good? Or should I only use force to protect my neighbor's freedom (his only means of truly being good)?

I've believed that it is wrong to force people to be good for a long time now. I've believed force against other people should be reserved for preserving freedom. But just recently I've realized an unexpected consequence of this belief: I shouldn't use my vote to force others to give money to good causes. Causes like welfare, education, defense, healthcare. It's good to give money for these things, but it's bad to force others to give money (taxes) for these things. Maybe government support should be given and received voluntarily.

If someone can find an error in my reasoning, I'd like to hear it. The premise that God gives us freedom to be good or bad I'm pretty firm on. It would take quite a bit to tear that part down. Thanks.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/24/2004 9:51 AM (GMT -6)

Looking at "logic" without recognizing the real-world context that surrounds the activity, the living, and the community within with everything exists would be a failure. So I won't; but I will be simple.

A small part of my money-making-task (teaching art to special ed. kids) involves using the public highways. I am free to not use them. (I can take my canoe across the river...) And so are others. But electing to use the roads (buying gas--which in Illinios involves paying taxes!) and electing to have a car (paying taxes again on reistration/license) mean that I help establish the very foundation of what makes other people also pay taxes, and pay them towards what they also may not like.

Tit for tat.

In a society and in a civilization we make each other do things. We make our neighbors take care of their stuff. We limit noise and dangers. Etc.

The ONE thing that we can't do -- which God also does not force -- is to make someone exercise religion.

Both Christianity and Islam are the same on this. Faith, belief and religious obedience cannot be forced! God doesn't either. (Even John Calvin described this as "wooing" and not force.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 10:47 AM (GMT -6)

I understand that we are free to use or not use government services, but even those who walk (or canoe) to work are forced to pay for roads, even if they think cars are an unethical waste of resources. What about toll booths instead?

By the way, I'm a Christian. I guess the name's misleading.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/24/2004 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

In teaching, I always supply choices for the students. Even if it is a choice between one choice and going to the time-out room.

Morality/Religious activity MUST be free.

Nothing else need be.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 11:18 AM (GMT -6)

I can go for children being forced to do good or be punished. But I don't think the same goes for independent adults. Should I be fined for not turning the other cheek? Should I be sent to jail for not sharing (welfare)? Sharing is a religious command. We shouldn't force religious action.

I appriciate the discussion.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/24/2004 11:26 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

I can go for children being forced to do good or be punished. But I don't think the same goes for independent adults. Should I be fined for not turning the other cheek? Should I be sent to jail for not sharing (welfare)? Sharing is a religious command. We shouldn't force religious action.

I appriciate the discussion.

Subscription in use of roads forces your contribution towards the civil defence (interstate highway system) of the nation.

"Sharing" as a spiritual act is religious act. But the Pharasie's "gift" was a business investment. Cheep P.R.

Gotta run.

Anybody else?

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/24/2004 12:11 PM (GMT -6)

In the same passage where it says love is the fulfillment of the law:

Romans 13:8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

God also says that human government is God-ordained to stop rebels and evildoers. Any benevolent government will in fact punish those who commit evil.

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 1:04 PM (GMT -6)

If we should always submit to authority, wasn't it wrong to be a Nazi resister in France? Was the Red Scare justified because the government did it? Were segregated schools righteous because the government said so? I remember a story in the Bible where Moses' mother disobeyed a government command. I also remember Joseph and Mary doing the same thing.

Isn't there a higher authority to be obeyed when our earthly and spiritual authorities contradict?

Anyways, an appeal to obedience to government authority misses the point. We are the government authority. Being a Christian does not mean you are off the hook. In America the government is by the people. We must decide how to make laws that are loving towards our fellowman in accordance with the true law. We are the ones who "bring punishment on the wrongdoer". We are God's "agent of wrath". So how should we rule our brothers and sisters?

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/24/2004 1:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

If we should always submit to authority, wasn't it wrong to be a Nazi resister in France? Was the Red Scare justified because the government did it? Were segregated schools righteous because the government said so? I remember a story in the Bible where Moses' mother disobeyed a government command. I also remember Joseph and Mary doing the same thing.

Isn't there a higher authority to be obeyed when our earthly and spiritual authorities contradict?
[quote]
Anyways, an appeal to obedience to government authority misses the point. We are the government authority. Being a Christian does not mean you are off the hook. In America the government is by the people. We must decide how to make laws that are loving towards our fellowman in accordance with the true law. We are the ones who "bring punishment on the wrongdoer". We are God's "agent of wrath". So how should we rule our brothers and sisters?

I think you are mixing up the kingdom of God with the kingdoms (governments) of this world. While it is true in our democratic society in the U.S. that "we are the government" in a representative sense, it is not the case that we as Christians are to establish God's rule on earth through political means. Instead, we are to follow the example of Paul, who said, "therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord we persuade men."

Paul lived and ministered under a very oppressive Roman government, and yet he seems quite clear as to what should be the New Covenant Christian's attitude towards civil government.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 1:55 PM (GMT -6)

Exactly!
We should persuade men to fear the Lord and therefore obey him, but we shouldn't force them with laws.

I agree that if there is a bad law that we can follow without disobeying God, then we should follow it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/24/2004 2:19 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

Exactly!
We should persuade men to fear the Lord and therefore obey him, but we shouldn't force them with laws.

I agree that if there is a bad law that we can follow without disobeying God, then we should follow it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it.

However, for those who are persistent in their rebellion against God's law and the God-ordained secular government, the secular government has the God-given authority (Romans 13) to establish laws and punish evildoers. Unless you work as a police officer or some other government agent, your duty is simply to obey the law, not enforce it personally by arrogating to yourself the role of the police.

That said, in a democratic society, we also have the moral obligation to work for social justice within the context of (nonviolent) means of social change.

1Heart
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128

Posted 6/24/2004 6:19 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

The entire law is summed up in "love God" and "love your neighbor". I believe that God has given us freedom to choose, because true love can only come from freedom. So, if I love my neighbor, shouldn't I follow God's example? Should I force another person to do good? Or should I only use force to protect my neighbor's freedom (his only means of truly being good)?

I've believed that it is wrong to force people to be good for a long time now. I've believed force against other people should be reserved for preserving freedom. But just recently I've realized an unexpected consequence of this belief: I shouldn't use my vote to force others to give money to good causes. Causes like welfare, education, defense, healthcare. It's good to give money for these things, but it's bad to force others to give money (taxes) for these things. Maybe government support should be given and received voluntarily.

If someone can find an error in my reasoning, I'd like to hear it. The premise that God gives us freedom to be good or bad I'm pretty firm on. It would take quite a bit to tear that part down. Thanks.

"Good" without love is dead works, is it not? And we are to repent of dead works. Real love must be freely given and freely chosen or it is not love at all. Love is not coerced.

We do love in an imperfect world. The Father knows that. The Pharisees became part of Jesus' object lessons (unwittingly). Sometimes we have to "use" what we have at hand to love.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you right. I guess I'll see.
God Bless (nice to meet you)

Jo-Anne
Approve

"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."

1Heart
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128

Posted 6/24/2004 6:22 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Looking at "logic" without recognizing the real-world context that surrounds the activity, the living, and the community within with everything exists would be a failure. So I won't; but I will be simple.

A small part of my money-making-task (teaching art to special ed. kids) involves using the public highways. I am free to not use them. (I can take my canoe across the river...) And so are others. But electing to use the roads (buying gas--which in Illinios involves paying taxes!) and electing to have a car (paying taxes again on reistration/license) mean that I help establish the very foundation of what makes other people also pay taxes, and pay them towards what they also may not like.

Tit for tat.

In a society and in a civilization we make each other do things. We make our neighbors take care of their stuff. We limit noise and dangers. Etc.

The ONE thing that we can't do -- which God also does not force -- is to make someone exercise religion.

Both Christianity and Islam are the same on this. Faith, belief and religious obedience cannot be forced! God doesn't either. (Even John Calvin described this as "wooing" and not force.

I'd like to hear more about your work sometime. I've cared for special needs kids now for the past 7 plus years.

Good thoughts. There is no love without freedom either.

Jo-Anne Clown

"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 7:17 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
However, for those who are persistent in their rebellion against God's law and the God-ordained secular government, the secular government has the God-given authority (Romans 13) to establish laws and punish evildoers. Unless you work as a police officer or some other government agent, your duty is simply to obey the law, not enforce it personally by arrogating to yourself the role of the police.

That said, in a democratic society, we also have the moral obligation to work for social justice within the context of (nonviolent) means of social change.

The thing is, I am a government agent, and I assume you are too. I am the government, and so are you. It is our responsibility to work to have good laws. If we are not active in the political process, it is our fault when that process hurts someone. I feel that we should follow the example of Jesus. He had an even better claim to authority, but he lovingly lets us choose. He also gives help freely. Does he force you to help the poor or help pay for roads? I think he would approve of our doing these things. But, I also think he would disapprove of a majority forcing the minority to do these things. Of course, this minority must subject itself to authority as well. But just because the minority is responsible for obedience doesn't mean it is right for the majority to spend the minority's money. That is stealing.

Simply stated: the majority should not steal, but when it does, the minority should "turn the other cheek."

I like what moon_river_j said:

quote:
"Good" without love is dead works, is it not? And we are to repent of dead works. Real love must be freely given and freely chosen or it is not love at all. Love is not coerced.

By coercing good works we take away part of our ability to truly love. If, when the choice is given to each individual whether they should do good, needy people are forgotten, it is our job as the body of Christ to remember them and help. Should we really force those who do not believe that the world was made out of love to do good and love their neighbor? Doesn't the job of healing fall to the body of Christ?

Finally, I believe the social justice we should work for is freedom. We must have freedom if we are to follow the first and second commandments to love God and our neighbor.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/24/2004 7:52 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

quote:
However, for those who are persistent in their rebellion against God's law and the God-ordained secular government, the secular government has the God-given authority (Romans 13) to establish laws and punish evildoers. Unless you work as a police officer or some other government agent, your duty is simply to obey the law, not enforce it personally by arrogating to yourself the role of the police.

That said, in a democratic society, we also have the moral obligation to work for social justice within the context of (nonviolent) means of social change.

The thing is, I am a government agent, and I assume you are too. I am the government, and so are you.

No, I do not work for the U.S. Gov't or any state gov't thereof.

quote:
It is our responsibility to work to have good laws. If we are not active in the political process, it is our fault when that process hurts someone.

I agree.

quote:
I feel that we should follow the example of Jesus. He had an even better claim to authority, but he lovingly lets us choose.

Threatening people with hell is giving them a choice?

quote:
He also gives help freely. Does he force you to help the poor or help pay for roads? I think he would approve of our doing these things.

Helping the poor is to be from a heart of love. I do not agree that taking care of the poor should be the responsibility of the secular government.

quote:
But, I also think he would disapprove of a majority forcing the minority to do these things.

Again, it seems to me that you are not properly distinguishing between the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God.

quote:
Simply stated: the majority should not steal, but when it does, the minority should "turn the other cheek."

Once again, this would only work in a context where everyone agreed on the "turn the other cheek" principle, and it was codified into law/moral code (as in the Church).

quote:
Finally, I believe the social justice we should work for is freedom. We must have freedom if we are to follow the first and second commandments to love God and our neighbor.

So you're saying we DON'T have the freedom to love God and our neighbor already?

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 6/24/2004 8:12 PM (GMT -6)

We do not have the right to force our religious views of living on others. Not everyone is going to accept love as the true way to live. Some will choose evil. We who love must protect the innocent from such people.
One must ask: what is love? Is love taking away the laws that keep child molsters from kids? Rapists from women? God is not the God of confusion, nor disorder.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/24/2004 10:56 PM (GMT -6)

Ok. I see two issues here. 1) Kingdom of God vs. world and 2)laws protecting the innocent.

1) The Kingdom of God is the kingdom we (as Christians) belong to. It is the kingdom with the highest priority. In my understanding, it is wrong for me to take money from anyone, even if it's for a good reason. (This is a Kingdom of God principle, right? Love your neighbor?) The ends don't justify the means. So, I belonging to a majority that believes in helping the poor, I cannot ethically support a tax that steals from all and gives to the poor. It is stealing, because some of the people who are taxed are being forced to give their money. We do work for the U.S. government by voting, unless we recklessly shirk our responsibility. We are in both camps. We are to be both just rulers and obedient servants.

2) This is a much more emotional issue. I hate to see innocent people hurt. (Innocent as meant in everyday use.) Laws that grant the state the right to apprehend suspects for good cause and imprison those who have been found to hurt the innocent (or anyone else) after a fair trial, I believe are good laws. I'm not sure, however, that it is a good law to force my neighbor to protect the innocent with taxes that fund police and prison. I think that if the entire process was privatized there would be plenty of people willing to help with the cost of private law enforcement. It would be to the advantage of nearly everyone.

I should have said this in the first post: I don't think everything should be changed overnight, but a think we should, as voters and eligible candidates, move in this direction.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 6/25/2004 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

Regardless of how you catagorize it, until Christ comes we live in a fallen world and must fight against evil, including making some people do what they do not wish to do for the protection of the innocent and weak. This is God honoring...there are some who love evil.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/26/2004 11:03 PM (GMT -6)

It is my contention that "making some people do what they do not wish to do for the protection of the innocent and weak" is evil. Therefore, to do so is to fight for evil. Saying that the world is fallen doesn't allow me to vote as though I am not held to a higher authority. Even the idea of making 'some' people do this, is to become a respecter of persons. I can't do that with a clean conscious. As long as I have the power to influence my government through my vote, I believe I should use that vote consistently. Either legislate morality or don't. If the government can ethically punish me for being immoral in one area (not helping the poor), then it can also ethically punish me for being immoral in another area (not remembering to honor my father my sending him a card on Father's Day). If we start ranking immoral actions, then breaking a commandment should be pretty high on the list.

Or maybe the government should stay out of morality and just stick to what we originally made it to do: to preserve (not ensure) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/26/2004 11:12 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Sahid

It is my contention that "making some people do what they do not wish to do for the protection of the innocent and weak" is evil. Therefore, to do so is to fight for evil.

Interesting. The Apostle Paul (and Right Reason) does not agree with you on this. Do you really believe the greater good of society would in any way be promoted if we just let child molesters, rapists, and murderers run loose?

If your neighbor is being raped and you have the ability to stop the rapist, the only loving thing to do is to intervene by violating the will and limiting the freedom of the rapist.

quote:
Either legislate morality or don't.

We may not be able to legislate righteous hearts (or true morality) but history has proven that it is in fact quite easy to encourage IMmorality in any given society, most of all by advocating the sort of anarchy you seem to favor.

quote:
If our government is in the business of protecting the poor(er) at the expense of the rich(er), than I should be punished by the government for my sins.

I cannot grasp any logical coherence in this last sentence.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/26/2004 11:19 PM (GMT -6)

I'm not saying we let child molesters run lose. I'm saying we should not compel others to protect our children. A parent has a legal responsibility to protect his or her children. A stranger shouldn't. If the government stopped taking our money we could afford to form and fund volutary security. I know it's idealistic, but I think this is an ideal we should SLOWLY move towards.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/26/2004 11:22 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I cannot grasp any logical coherence in this last sentence.

You're right. I changed that part because it wasn't clear. Sorry.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/26/2004 11:35 PM (GMT -6)

Is the Paul refernce to obeying authority and thier right to punish? If so, my response is that now we are the government, and if we are good U.S. citizens we do work for the U.S. government. The government is by, of, and for the people. We constitute the government, so we (through the government) work for the people (who, again, constitute the government). The idea is that the governing and the governed are no longer separate groups. For my part, I believe that I should govern in a moral way and in a way that works. As for finding a way that works, I believe I'm following God's example (I wish I could make that sound less arrogant) by allowing individual freedom. Because I am also being governed I believe I should work for peaceful change.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/28/2004 2:21 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Or maybe the government should stay out of morality and just stick to what we originally made it to do: to preserve (not ensure) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness[/font=Book Antiqua]

To preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires LIMITATIONS and restrictions on the liberty of SOME. There must be civil laws restricting the liberty of those who desire to steal, swindle, murder, or otherwise hinder the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others. In other words, supporting (and in some cases enforcing) morality is part of the very nature of good government.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 6/28/2004 9:42 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
To preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires LIMITATIONS and restrictions on the liberty of SOME. There must be civil laws restricting the liberty of those who desire to steal, swindle, murder, or otherwise hinder the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others. In other words, supporting (and in some cases enforcing) morality is part of the very nature of good government.

You're right. I think a good government will enforce morality as far as making sure the life and liberty of the governed is not stolen. A bad government (bad at least to a degree) will force people to be governed, essentially to pay "protection money". I think a better way is to allow people to choose whether they want to share the job of protecting life and freedom or whether they want to do the job on their own.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:19 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual