 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > The Kingdom of God and Violence | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/27/2006 5:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | Sahid,
Ok. My thoughts.
Let's say that we went with your ideas here. The fact of the matter is we are not talking about a ruler elevating the status of his/her subjects. We are talking about a ruler who so cares about his/her subjects that there is intense IDENTIFICATION with the subjects...to the point of of saying that action done to the "least of these" is interpreted as action directly done to the ruler. An benevolent, empathic ruler that does NOT objectify his/her subjects.
Now...
If this empathic ruler ordains or sanctions violence to be done TO some of his people BY some of his people, for WHATEVER REASON (no matter how understandable), then what is this? A house divided against itself? Or is it a form of "double effect" dealing with a "rook being sacrificed for the queen"? Would we be seeing a ruler doing things that he/she may feel NECESSARY though said things are emotionally PAINFUL to see take place?
One example that stands out in my mind is Peter's denial. Even using the full force of open theism, we cannot move away from the idea that God had a significant hand in Peter's actualization of denying Jesus. (Check even Doc's problematic explanation of it) Are we saying that Peter wasn't of God's people? Are we saying that it didn't PAIN God to see Peter sell Jesus out, even though God made sure to supposedly set things up to "squeeze" Peter's cowardly character out of him in action? What does this imply?
Hmmm...
"Agonized participation", baby. We'll talk about it some more later. Guaranteed.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/27/2006 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph, first this isn't an argument I'd expect to hear from you. I know I haven't pegged your every belief, but I wasn't expecting you to base theology on literal interpretation of a biblical story. Nevertheless, I don't see any problem that Peter's denial creates that character solidification doesn't solve. Sure Jesus predicted an action (with at least a very high degree of certainty). This logically means that the event was (at least to a great degree) predetermined. So, if Peter is morally accountable for the event (as the latter "feed my sheep" passage leads me to believe), then Peter himself must have played the decisive role in predetermining the event. Sure, it's a self-serving, too-convenient rationalization. But it is a viable working understanding of the story as far as I can tell.
I see no reason to believe that God caused Peter's denial or any other sinful action. God does not sin. He doesn't choose to commit the lesser of two sins. And I agree with Doc that: "I think it is clear from Jesus' teachings, life, and especially his death that Jesus would choose nonviolence [even when faced with an attacker who cannot be stopped from harming his family]. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had throughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same."
I do agree with you that God does not objectify people. That was not my point. God does idenitify with the least of these. He is especially idenitified with Jesus who never came close to hinting at a "just violence" theory. In fact the idea appears nowhere in the New Testament. The idea of justifiable violence may have found a home amongst people who called themselves Christian, but it is no more properly "Christian" than being left-handed is. Jesus commanded his followers not to resist evil men. He desplayed this ethic through his own life and then death. There is no exception clause excusing justifying disobedience to this command and example. We must take up the cross and put away the sword. Christians too often get these backwards.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/27/2006 6:33:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/28/2006 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
Meph, first this isn't an argument I'd expect to hear from you. I know I haven't pegged your every belief, but I wasn't expecting you to base theology on literal interpretation of a biblical story. Nevertheless, I don't see any problem that Peter's denial creates that character solidification doesn't solve. Sure Jesus predicted an action (with at least a very high degree of certainty). This logically means that the event was (at least to a great degree) predetermined. So, if Peter is morally accountable for the event (as the latter "feed my sheep" passage leads me to believe), then Peter himself must have played the decisive role in predetermining the event. Sure, it's a self-serving, too-convenient rationalization. But it is a viable working understanding of the story as far as I can tell.
I see no reason to believe that God caused Peter's denial or any other sinful action. God does not sin. He doesn't choose to commit the lesser of two sins.
If it's viable to you, so be it. I've been around this mulberry bush with Doc enough to believe that this issue was far from solved by character solidification. In a chapter of the edited book "Beyond the Bounds" Paul Helseth lays out the problems very square. (Please read it, if you get a chance) And they are generally the same issues I'd talked about BEFORE that book even came out. There had been no response to Helseth or the challenges of his chapter. Of course, it's Doc's prerogative to respond when and to whom he wishes...but the fact remains that, to my knowledge, those very really challenges concerning Doc's interpretation of Peter's denial have not been responded to at all. For my score, the only thing that makes sense, given the presuppositions of the world being open AND Jesus' predictions being true future-telling type prophecy, is for God to providentially insure that Peter would be placed in certain situations and excluded from other situation such that he would at LEAST have 3 truly tempting opportunities to deny Jesus before the crowing of the rooster.
Now, if we go with this idea, then you have God setting up situations such that a person (a least to a very very high degree of probability) WILL deny Jesus. Is this not a sin? Do we mean to say that God would have been indifferent to Peter's hardcore denial of his former master? Surely, you wouldn't say that, right? Then you have the issue.
*******************************
Sahid:
And I agree with Doc that: "I think it is clear from Jesus' teachings, life, and especially his death that Jesus would choose nonviolence [even when faced with an attacker who cannot be stopped from harming his family]. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had throughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same."
I have soooo many thoughts on Doc's presentation and interpretion of Jesus' actions...I'm gonna have to take some time to distill them properly. Let me say this for now. I think issue is a LOT more complex then may seem to make it. I am not saying that Jesus wouldn't have an unchanging, active preference for non-violence. I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE with that idea. But there are some serious discussions to be had before making it stick that life in the Reign of God functionally equals a complete deontological orientation of non-violence.
We'll see.
*******************************
Sahid:
I do agree with you that God does not objectify people. That was not my point. God does idenitify with the least of these. He is especially idenitified with Jesus who never came close to hinting at a "just violence" theory. In fact the idea appears nowhere in the New Testament. The idea of justifiable violence may have found a home amongst people who called themselves Christian, but it is no more properly "Christian" than being left-handed is. Jesus commanded his followers not to resist evil men. He desplayed this ethic through his own life and then death. There is no exception clause excusing justifying disobedience to this command and example. We must take up the cross and put away the sword. Christians too often get these backwards.
Man....so much to say. Gotta distill.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/28/2006 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: For my score, the only thing that makes sense, given the presuppositions of the world being open AND Jesus' predictions being true future-telling type prophecy, is for God to providentially insure that Peter would be placed in certain situations and excluded from other situation such that he would at LEAST have 3 truly tempting opportunities to deny Jesus before the crowing of the rooster.
Sahid: I'll get all the "to a great degree's" out of the way first. Feel free to put one in wherever it seems appropriate. Now, it is my belief that free will is very seldom used amongst humans. I think we usually bind ourselves to and operate out of principals that we've chosen many years ago. Sometimes these fundamental "beliefs" are not chosen but externally imposed or or chosen by default by unthinking acceptance of external influences. Could be a number of things. So I consider it believable that a large group of people could spend twelve hours on auto-pilot. In fact I would guess that a large group would be more predictable and might very well act as a determining cause of Peter's denials given the state of his character. It's not just that Peter's character was solidified and the rest of the world was entirely unsolidified.
Instead of "providentially insure" it might be "have knowledge of many determined sets of individual actions of which at least Peter's was freely chosen." It's a mouthfull, but I think it fits with the two basic messages that this part of the story is trying to get across: (1) Jesus knew about the Peter's denial before it happened and (2) it was Peter's denial (he was culpable). So, both the situation and Peter's actions were determined. The situation may have been determined by any number of causes both freely chosen and unfree. Peter's actions were also determined, but the story leads us to believe that at least Peter's actions are determined by his freedom.
Meph: I have soooo many thoughts on Doc's presentation and interpretion of Jesus' actions...I'm gonna have to take some time to distill them properly. Let me say this for now. I think issue is a LOT more complex then may seem to make it. I am not saying that Jesus wouldn't have an unchanging, active preference for non-violence. I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE with that idea. But there are some serious discussions to be had before making it stick that life in the Reign of God functionally equals a complete deontological orientation of non-violence.
Sahid: Whenever Jesus talked about the subject, he sided with non-violence. Whatever he did, he did it non-violently. When he died, he died non-violently. Not only that, in all three Jesus had as justifiable a reason to use and teach limited violence as anyone ever has. His people were being oppressed economically, politically, and physically. Then he says that to be a disciple one must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow him. He makes it clear from the beginning that this will end up getting people persecuted and killed. Families will be torn apart. But all this is a warning to count the cost. He lets us know exactly what he's offering and what it will cost and then asks us again, "Are you sure you want to be my disciple?"
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/3/2012 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | Emergent Christians Warn against the Bible's "Loaded Guns."
If Jesus CALLED DOWN DEATH, DECAY and DESTRUCTION on plants and animals, then why should McClaren stop at the "texts of terror?" Why not take out Jesus' cursing of a fig tree and sending demons into pigs? C'mon. Good grief.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/12/2012 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm almost done watching a movie called, "Machine Gun Preacher" www.imdb.com/title/tt1586752/ It is about the true story of Sam Childers who goes into Southern Sudan and in the war torn areas of Uganda and saves children from the LRA (Lord's Resistence Army) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army This is Childers site here: www.machinegunpreacher.org/
I bring this up because it does raise questions about the tension of violence and Christianity. The movie itself does not explicitly speak about this tension but you simply begin ask yourself questions about the use of violence in missionary work. The one thing is that we are not looking at Christian jihad. We are looking at someone who is trying to save children from Kony and using force to do so.
See, we talked about using every means possible before using force or we talk about being led by the Spirit to NOT saving someone who is being attacked. Well, I'm wondering if this can work in the way Sam Childers is using it. If there is room for the use of violence, as even God has to resort to it. Would it be immoral to use it in the way Childers does? See, when Childer's saves a child, he puts his money where his mouth is. There really is no sitting down and reasoning with these militants. They're savages who cut the lips off of children, maim them, sell them into sex slavery, have them kill their own parents and on and on. Just horrible, horrible atrocities. When he goes into an area to save children he knows he may more than likely have to kill. This seems as if it essentially is no different than a police officer involved in a highly volatile situation. Just wondering if you may have any thoughts on this.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
| | Back to Top | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:20 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 |
|
|