 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > The Kingdom of God and Violence | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/20/2005 4:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | Selah said...
John,
You don't think you're projecting, I don't think I'm projecting...welcome to the matrix.
I guess it's not that important to me.
Blessings,
selah
I was just responding. I have no idea why you think I'm taking your comments "personally" (if by that you mean "offensive.") I wasn't offended by your comments at all. I was simply (and only) responding to something I thought was interesting; specifically, that somehow people who tend towards Calvinism have more of an "Old Testament picture of God" in their minds. While I think I get what you're saying, I just disagree with it. I see the same, steady character of God in both testaments, and I'm about as far from a Calvinist as one could imagine. There's plenty of "wrath of God" stuff in the New Testament, just as there's plenty of "grace, mercy and love of God" stuff in the Old Testament.
If you'd prefer, I will abstain from responding to your posts in the future unless I want to give you a high five. 
JohnPost Edited (JEE) : 1/20/2005 3:50:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/20/2005 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | another piece:
I think I agree with the agonized participant view of God. (may need more later.
As for the Warfare view, I think of it along the lines of Judgment... GOD JUDGES, WE DON'T.
GOD WARS, WE DON'T Vengence is the Lords...that kind of thing.
Human violence seems to be ...at the very least...not good. Peace, always good.
Ge 6:11 - Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Ps 11:5 - The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Pr 1:19 - So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors
Job 16:17 - Although there is no violence in my hands, And my prayer is pure.
Heb 12:14 - Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
Ro 12:18 - If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
what am I missing?
...
love
selah
PS. HI Electra and Modes, long time no see :)
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
When I think of the Warfare view, I think of it more along the lines of Judgment... GOD JUDGES, WE DON'T.
GOD WARS, WE DON'T Vengence is the Lords...that kind of thing.
Hmmm...think of it in line of God as SOVEREIGN, meaning ruler over a domain that has supreme, permanent governing authority. Think PROVIDENCE.
Violence doesn't only occur in judgement or vengeance. But also in protection and security. Also in limitation of certain "free" elements.
This is where the "greater good" element really kicks in.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
so the thing I don't get about the god of love who protects/does greater good things through occasional violent acts -- is how we are supposed to know Him.
We know him through his revealing works (OT and NT), which culminate in Jesus. It is partly working from a Christocentric perspective that we can come up with the idea of God being at war, correct? That there is a war zone?
Here's a question. Would you consider Jesus's cursing of the fig tree and it's subsequent death a VIOLENT act? If so, why? If not, why not? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's something.
All the "greater good" argument basically says is that, on some level, utilitarianism is going on. God looks at the picture, evaluates all the positives and negatives of a situation...and on that basis, says whether an action is going to be "worth it" OVERALL or not. He does this in trying to maximize the good while minimizing the evil.
For the warfare worldview, God basically says that the emergence of sin, death, hell and all that stuff...and ALL possible particular evils that emerge...are ACCEPTABLE RISKS so that God can have a universe of free beings that can freely choose to love God. Within this, God always does "the most God can do" to maximize the good and minimize evil. God empathizes with ALL the suffering and takes responsibility for it, in part through the Cross. Despite all that, God declared all this stuff WORTH IT from the beginning.
This IS a "greater good" view.
and, I believe, anyone who really looks at it will see that this goes RIGHT ALONG with just war theory ala "agonized participant"
Surely, we see this, right?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Possible implication:
If we are truly supposed to be like God, it would seem to me that we would NOT be pacifists, in the strict sense. We would be more like "agonized participants" who work WITHIN evil patterns, structures, and systems to FREE ourselves and others from those things. We would do ALL things in love. Unconditional love. From our loving stance, we would do all we could to PROMOTE THE GOOD. One doesn't have to love to be just and fair...but one CANNOT love and be UNjust and UNfair. This means we would do what we can to promote whatever is good and lovely and minimize whatever is evil and profane. In all things we would love...EVEN WHEN WE HAVE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE. We would promote all avenues of "win/win" situations. We would do our utmost to serve those others. If need be, we would foster all types of strategic non-violent resistance to oppressive systems and regimes. If nothing else worked, and gross injustice and inhumanity contintued, we would consider using violence. In this, we do ONLY what we have to...as a VERY, VERY last resort. We would try every non-violent means we could before we exercised any type of violence. We would do this soberly, consceientiously, and yes, sorrowfully. Very sorrowfully. In our "sacrificing the rook for the queen" moments, we'd mourn over the losses, just like Jesus mourned over Jerusalem that one time. We would NEVER objectify our "enemy", but would EMPATHIZE with them and continue to seek after them. And we would work our butts off for the restoration and reconciliation of ANYTHING possible from that ordeal. We would live in the tension of the fallen world with our hearts set on eternity...a NON-VIOLENT eternity...and try to replicate that as much as possible here in the now.
Doesn't THIS look like the all-loving, all-good God who "wars" against the Kingdom of Darkness??
PS: It is for this VERY reason that I truly believe that God is one of the most joyful...and most MISERABLE beings in existence. Think about a God who empathizes with EVERY sufferer and mourns for EVERY heart turned against him...24 hours a day..7 days a week...52 weeks a year. All the time. Truly only LOVE would want to do this.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/23/2005 11:38:52 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Whoops. Another thought.
Doc keeps talking about keeping the Kingdom holy. about making sure that we understand that the Kingdom of God is NOT the Kingdom of the world. And that no remodeled Kingdom of this world will EVER, EVER be the Kingdom of God. Simply because the Kingdom of God is the reign of God in human hearts where the perfect love of God is internalized and replicated to the world...whereas the kingdom of the world is FAR from this. Understandable.
Now look at my description of things:
If we are truly supposed to be like God, it would seem to me that we would NOT be pacifists, in the strict sense. We would be more like "agonized participants" who work WITHIN evil patterns, structures, and systems to FREE ourselves and others from those things. We would do ALL things in love. Unconditional love. From our loving stance, we would do all we could to PROMOTE THE GOOD. One doesn't have to love to be just and fair...but one CANNOT love and be UNjust and UNfair. This means we would do what we can to promote whatever is good and lovely and minimize whatever is evil and profane. In all things we would love...EVEN WHEN WE HAVE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE. In this, we do ONLY what we have to...as a VERY, VERY last resort. We would try every non-violent means we could before we exercised any type of violence. We would do this soberly, consceientiously, and yes, sorrowfully. Very sorrowfully. In our "sacrificing the rook for the queen" moments, we'd mourn over the losses, just like Jesus mourned over Jerusalem that one time. We would NEVER objectify our "enemy", but would continue to seek after them. And we would work our butts off for the restoration and reconciliation of ANYTHING possible from that ordeal. We would live in the tension of the fallen world with our hearts set on eternity...a NON-VIOLENT eternity...and try to replicate that as much as possible here in the now.
Now, be honest. Do you mean to tell me that if ANY person really operated in this fashion from the heart, they wouldn't stick out like a SORE THUMB in our "preemptive strike", get-all-we-can-get-screw-the-enemy society?? Do you THINK they'd have Abu Ghirab stories? Or pictures of enemies being utterly dehumanized and humiliated? Heck, no. Do you think they'd spend day after day trying to hold on to their humanity...and praying for the "enemies" they may end up fighting that day? Yep.
They'd look like friggin SAINTS...and they WOULD be saints in the sense of living in the Kingdom in a hellish world.
What I'm saying is that living in the Kingdom of God in this fallen world does NOT mandate absolute pacifism...but it does mandates an UNALTERABLE commitment to live in love, serve others (even our "enemies") and pursue peace...and be willing to give one's life for all that.
Now, tell me THAT ain't being holy.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/20/2005 7:42:34 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/20/2005 11:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph said:
a. This position believes that while war can never be an act of justice it may sometimes be necessary for the prevention of a greater evil that would result from permitting morally perverse power to gain political dominance.
b. The agonized participant insists that war must be conducted with contrition and kept free of vindictive hatred for the enemy.
c. Military victory, while necessary, is but a negative attainment that clears the way for subsequent political and social programs designed to reestablish reasonable justice and order.
d. Lastly, the agonized participant acknowledges the right and privilege of conscientious objection to war even though he disagrees with those Christians who consider themselves called to this witness.
This is precisely how I think of the issue of military service. I totally respect the right of persons to conscientiously object, while at the same time realize that in some cases waging war is for the highest good (such as when the Allies went to war to defeat Hitler's aggression).
Related to this is my view that justice is not contrary to benevolence, but is in fact essential to it. In some cases, nonvindictive violence in order to restrain evil is the highest good in a given situation, like, for instance, when Bonhoeffer decided he could go along with the plot to assassinate Hitler.
Another case might be when acting to defend the innocent or powerless, such as physically restraining (and even in certain regrettable situations, killing) a criminal. I don't see any reason why a truly benevolent-hearted police officer could not possibly use deadly force, if need be, to stop a killer from killing.
Related to this would be defending one's neighbor from a violent aggressor. If we somehow think it would be "unloving" towards a rapist for us to physically attempt to stop him from raping our next-door neighbor, how have we shown love to the rape victim? Benevolence seeks the highest good of allPost Edited (JEE) : 1/20/2005 10:35:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/21/2005 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Possible implication:
If we are truly supposed to be like God, it would seem to me that we would NOT be pacifists, in the strict sense. We would be more like "agonized participants" who work WITHIN evil patterns, structures, and systems to FREE ourselves and others from those things. We would do ALL things in love. Unconditional love. From our loving stance, we would do all we could to PROMOTE THE GOOD. One doesn't have to love to be just and fair...but one CANNOT love and be UNjust and UNfair. This means we would do what we can to promote whatever is good and lovely and minimize whatever is evil and profane. In all things we would love...EVEN WHEN WE HAVE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE. In this, we do ONLY what we have to...as a VERY, VERY last resort. We would try every non-violent means we could before we exercised any type of violence. We would do this soberly, consceientiously, and yes, sorrowfully. Very sorrowfully. In our "sacrificing the rook for the queen" moments, we'd mourn over the losses, just like Jesus mourned over Jerusalem that one time. We would NEVER objectify our "enemy", but would continue to seek after them. And we would work our butts off for the restoration and reconciliation of ANYTHING possible from that ordeal. We would live in the tension of the fallen world with our hearts set on eternity...a NON-VIOLENT eternity...and try to replicate that as much as possible here in the now.
Doesn't THIS look like the all-loving, all-good God who "wars" against the Kingdom of Darkness??
PS: It is for this VERY reason that I truly believe that God is one of the most joyful...and most MISERABLE beings in existence. Think about a God who empathizes with EVERY sufferer and mourns for EVERY heart turned against him...24 hours a day..7 days a week...52 weeks a year. All the time. Truly only LOVE would want to do this.
Is God an "agonized participant” in evil? I don’t think so.
The “greater good” argument seems to be a man made concept used to justify evil. It often appears to be an attempt to rationalize forms of evil in exchange to diminish the agonized world we live in. All in the name of the “greater good”, wow, isn’t that how Hitler rationalized his evil ways? One more evil lie to create a better world, in Hitler’s extreme case, by filling it with a supreme race of people. We sometimes tend to froget the millions of pople that choose to follow Hitler, he could't have accopmplished it on his own. The hell is a gradual progression, starting with just small tints of gray (little white lies) until it eventually becomes an uncontrollabe black funnel cloud sucking out one's own God given conscience.
In the kingdom of this world we might very well be forced to make choices between the lesser of two evils. We often see it in politics and war. The ambiguities of political issues forces endless combinations of compromise as we make choices between the “greater good”. But does God have to make similar choices when he deals in this world? Does God agonize to the extent that he is moved to participant in evil?
I would rather divulge the warfare theodicy that can describe evil as a departure of God. Evil is the privation of good. The negation of good is the reality of evil. Only God alone is good. I believe God is love, God is Light; it’s by His passive absences we are left in the darkness of evil. This is one reason why I pray for His Spirit to shine down upon us. Are there different shades of God’s light? Maybe! Perhaps God appears gray through the squinted eyes of finite men that are tossed into the darkness of this world. We should train our eyes to be aware of such perversion tangled in lies that comes to steal, kill and destroy, seen throughout history in long trails of blood baths and wasted lives. Lies were used to deceive Eve in regards to the character of God. Still to this day we find lies that lead to rejecting His light and rebelling against His prohibition. Unfortunately this world has never been short of blind men unable to see the clear black and white laws that separate us from God’s Holiness. The paradise was lost when mankind first bit on such a notion that God was anything less then pure Light - pure goodness.
Shalom,
Mark
Matthew 11:28-30 (NRSV)
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/21/2005 7:12:31 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Mark,
At least as I understand this, the inestimable value of human life is a fundamental and ever-crucial consideration, and therefore, at least as I understand the greater good approach, Hitler's crimes could never be even reasonably or rightly defended as an attempt to attain the greater good. It is never good when people are murdered or when entire races are systematically oppressed and killed.
Meph and Selah: As far as figs and pigs go, they are not moral agents made in the image of God, and as such, God may (obviously) use them for an "illustration" of truth, in some cases, without violating the moral law which He himself follows. IOW, I don't find utilitarianism to be God's mode of action, ever--a moral action is not righteous just because God does it, it is righteous (benevolent) when it conforms to the nature of righteousness/moral law, which is benevolence.
As the Apostle John says, "He that practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous."
John
P.S.: Also, it is crucial to note that God told Adam & Eve he had given them plants to eat before they ever sinned, and so it is not clear how eating plants could be rightly thought of as in and of itself part of the fallen creation. Post Edited (JEE) : 1/21/2005 4:02:16 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/21/2005 8:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
Hi Mark,
At least as I understand this, the inestimable value of human life is a fundamental and ever-crucial consideration, and therefore, at least as I understand the greater good approach, Hitler's crimes could never be even reasonably or rightly defended as an attempt to attain the greater good. It is never good when people are murdered or when entire races are systematically oppressed and killed.
I disagree with you, John. See my additional edits about the millions of people that followed Hitler. Those people were fooled into believing it was all for the greater good. We hear similar lies all the time. How about “the war to end all wars”.
Shine on,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/21/2005 10:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Mark,
I probably should've mentioned that I don't subscribe to the idea that "God is complicit in evil," nor to the idea that "God is a participant in evil" etc., as Meph does.
My understanding of the (highest, not just "greater" good argument is simply that benevolence involves willing (and acting towards) the highest good of all.
In my understanding of this (which I'm sure is somewhat different from Meph's) it could never serve to promote the highest good of all for any one person to be treated unjustly (like being gassed to death simply because of their race), regardless of what people may be deceived into thinking is the highest good. Satan's deception of Eve didn't change the real truth about God; that He is indeed righteous, holy, good, and trustworthy. Likewise, Hitler's lie about what was best for Germany (not the whole world) didn't change what was really the best (true benevolence); anyone who truly listened to their conscience would have known better than to think that his plans for "non-Aryans" was anything BUT perfectly diabolical, malevolent, and satanic.
I'm sure we both would agree that there could never be any justification for slaughtering all these people simply because they were Jewish. And I'm sure we'd both agree that there is no true crime at all in being of any particular ethnic group. The abuse of an idea does not constitute a negation of the reality of the idea itself.
I guess I don't get what your objection is here. Is it to the idea that God is omnibenevolent? By definition, this would mean that He always works to promote the highest good of the universe of moral creatures. How would you define benevolence?
Blessings,
JohnPost Edited (JEE) : 1/21/2005 9:26:46 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/22/2005 10:00 PM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
I guess I don't get what your objection is here. Is it to the idea that God is omnibenevolent? By definition, this would mean that He always works to promote the highest good of the universe of moral creatures. How would you define benevolence?
Hey Big Daddy! 
I think your right, John. It always seems to come down to how we define benevolence. Does "agonized participant" fall under the definition of God's benevolence?
The age old question about evil, how do you reconcile the three omni’s, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
1. If God, is omniscient, he knows when any evil is occurring (or about to occur).
2. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all evil.
3 If God is omnipotent, he could prevent all evil.
I have some ideas to throw out.
More later on….
Thanks, Mark
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/23/2005 7:26:08 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
kingsaint
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 80
| Posted 1/25/2005 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king... The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city."
Really?
If that is what happens when the wood is green, I would hate to see what happens when it is dry!
Be without fear in the face of your enemies Be brave and upright
Speak the truth
Safeguard the helpless
That is your oath
---Godfrey of Ibelin | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/26/2006 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:38 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 |
|
|