 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 9:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'd like to throw out an idea here. And see what y'all think. This is one of the reasons why I find myself seriously disagreeing with Doc and his view on the way the Kingdom of God operates in the world.
What I gather from Doc is that the Kingdom of God is fundamentally against violence and destruction...to the point that anything that is TRULY "kingdom" would NEVER use violent means to achieve it's goals. Never. Because the Kingdom of God is basically the Reign of God in the hearts of people where the perfect love of God is internalized and replicated, Doc would argue that violence (which is ultimately Satanic) CANNOT be of this Kingdom. And to the extent that one does live in violence, that one is NOT living in the Kingdom. Of course, this would make it go without saying that Christians would not participate in war or military violence of any type. What this would imply is that Christians should live in a state of NON-VIOLENCE.
Ok...now...
Six Conditions of Just War Theory:
1) It must be conducted by a legitimate authority which explicitly says that it intends to use military force to meet it's goals.
2) The cause must be justified, in that the action must be taken for the advancement of good and the minimization of evil.
3) It must be a LAST resort.
4) The good anticipated must OUTWEIGH the evil done in pursuit of the war.
5) There must be a reasonable expectation of success for the war.
6) It must be conducted according to the internationally accepted rules of warfar, never going beyond agreed-upon moral constraints.
[Digression: Ask yourself does the war in Iraq fit this. Just a question.]
Now, there's a twist that's proposed that I'd like to mention. All of this is from Roger H. Crook's "Introduction to Christian Ethics" 3rd ed. ,p 224. He talks about different Christian positions on military violence. First, he talks about participation as duty, then he talks about complete pacifism, then he talks about this..
Third, some Christians believe that war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. Recognizing the horrors of war, they believe that worse occurances may result from a failure to resist the activities of an evil government. The term currently employed to identify this view is "agonized participation." People who take this approach believe that it is their responsibility, not to give unconditional support to the government, but to evaluate the situation for themselves and to support the government in those wars that they believe to be necessary. This, of course, is very close to the "just war" position. In "War and Conscience in America", written during the Vietnam War when our nation was divided on the morality of our involvement, Edward LeRoy Long characterized this view in the following way:
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.
Ok. Now I want you people to read all of this stuff REEEEEEEALY carefully. Then, reread it. Now I want to pose this thought:
If the warfare worldview is true, and all of the implications that we have discussed on this board about that worldview are true (God being at war with Satan, Jesus being instrumental in this, etc), wouldn't this mean that God would be the "agonized participant" par excellence???
Think about this. We have already gone round and round about how ULTIMATELY the warfare worldview/open view ends up being a "GREATER GOOD" argument where God believes that OVERALL, the good things with this creation outweigh the bad. We've also said how we believe that God CAN use evil for his greater good purposes...though he doesn't ORIGINATE it. We've also said that God operates by the principles of "acceptable risk". Taking all of these things into consideration, how can we NOT say that God operates as a "agonized participant" in this war against the Kingdom of Darkness? It's like I tried to argue before. To say that God couldn't IN ANY WAY participate in evil structures (via complicity or use of evil) would be to ultimately take away God's UNILATERAL ACTIVITY and is use of FALLEN power structures! We'd end up with either a deistic God or straight process. We obviously can't take this line of thought. That's why the "greater good" argument exists.
I want to say MUCH more about this...but my point:
If God truly is in a "war" against the Kingdom of darkness, and Christus VICTOR is a motif that we use...if the warfare worldview/open view is TRUE, I cannot see how one can CONSISTENTLY say that living in the Kingdom of God in this fallen world MANDATES absolute NON-PARTICIPATION in violence. It doesn't even work that way for God. How would it work that way for us? The Kingdom of God is NOT violent...but the interaction between the Kingdom of God and the fallenness of this world MAY entail violence.
More later...
PS: Think of the love/ethics distinction that has been discussed HEAVILY on this board!
PSS: Also think about why, given what we are saying, it makes SENSE to say that God loves (NOT OBJECTIFIES) Satan!!
"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 | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/20/2005 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
I'd like to throw out an idea here.
.
.
.
Now, there's a twist that's proposed that I'd like to mention. All of this is from Roger H. Crook's "Introduction to Christian Ethics" 3rd ed. ,p 224.
.
.
.
If the warfare worldview is true, and all of the implications that we have discussed on this board about that worldview are true (God being at war with Satan, Jesus being instrumental in this, etc), wouldn't this mean that God would be the "agonized participant" par excellence???
.
.
.
I'm following you so far.
Mephi:
Think about this. We have already gone round and round about how ULTIMATELY the warfare worldview/open view ends up being a "GREATER GOOD" argument where God believes that OVERALL, the good things with this creation outweigh the bad.
Laika: I must have missed the meeting where "we" came to the conclusion that the warfare worldview "ends up being a 'GREATER GOOD' argument". I had Jesus derailing the train and NO kids dying in that infamous "analogy".
Mephi:
We've also said how we believe that God CAN use evil for his greater good purposes...though he doesn't ORIGINATE it. We've also said that God operates by the principles of "acceptable risk". Taking all of these things into consideration, how can we NOT say that God operates as a "agonized participant" in this war against the Kingdom of Darkness?
Laika: I shoulda been at that meeting.
Mephi: It's like I tried to argue before. To say that God couldn't IN ANY WAY participate in evil structures (via complicity or use of evil) would be to ultimately take away God's UNILATERAL ACTIVITY and is use of FALLEN power structures! We'd end up with either a deistic God or straight process. We obviously can't take this line of thought. That's why the "greater good" argument exists.
Laika: Mephi, "structures" are not moral, they aren't cognitive, they aren't autonomous entities, they are just organizations of people. If evil appears to exist in a "structure" it's because someone is doing the evil. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Fetishisizing 'things' into morally responsible agents holds absolutely no compunction for me.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika:
I must have missed the meeting where "we" came to the conclusion that the warfare worldview "ends up being a 'GREATER GOOD' argument". I had Jesus derailing the train and NO kids dying in that infamous "analogy".
I think that your buddy, Tom, can explain this. He's actually said it more than a few times recently here.
*************************************
Laika:
Mephi, "structures" are not moral, they aren't cognitive, they aren't autonomous entities, they are just organizations of people. If evil appears to exist in a "structure" it's because someone is doing the evil. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Fetishisizing 'things' into morally responsible agents holds absolutely no compunction for me.
If that's the way you want to conceptualize it, fine. The point, I believe, still stands. To say that God uses "organization of people" and some of the EVIL, VIOLENT outcomes of the workings of those organizations (ie God supposedly using Babylon to judge his people)...is to directly contradict the idea that God in NO way participates with violence.
"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 | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/20/2005 9:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/20/2005 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a totally trivial response to Meph's post:
MephEternal said...
... Roger H. Crook's "Introduction to Christian Ethics" I just think it's funny that a guy named "Crook" would write a book on ethics. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/20/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...One thing I see is that most that lean toward calvinism ALSo lean toward an OT understanding of God...pic of God..whatever. Most that lean away from calvin tend toward a NT understanding of God in Jc. Tom is the one who needs to reconcile these two groups, imho. Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work. Thanks a lot peace and love, selah
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Thanks,
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) : 1/20/2005 9:19:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/20/2005 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Selah said...
Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work.
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Yeah, and then fix my cat, because he's been, ya know, spraying all over the place.
 my eye roll is better'n yours, Corey
but this  ROOLZ !!!!!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/20/2005 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Selah said...
Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work.
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Yeah, and then fix my cat, because he's been, ya know, spraying all over the place.
my eye roll is better'n yours, Corey
but this ROOLZ !!!!!!!
By all means, go ahead and get the cat fixed. But please, keep all sharp instruments away from me.  Ouch.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/20/2005 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Selah said...
Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work.
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Yeah, and then fix my cat, because he's been, ya know, spraying all over the place.
my eye roll is better'n yours, Corey
but this ROOLZ !!!!!!!
By all means, go ahead and get the cat fixed. But please, keep all sharp instruments away from me. Ouch.
Use a sharp instrument?!?!?!?
That's a good idea, I shoulda thought of that before I did the others.
Then of course, I never would have gained my expertise at uromancy.... 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/20/2005 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Selah said...
Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work.
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Yeah, and then fix my cat, because he's been, ya know, spraying all over the place.
my eye roll is better'n yours, Corey
but this ROOLZ !!!!!!!
By all means, go ahead and get the cat fixed. But please, keep all sharp instruments away from me. Ouch.
Use a sharp instrument?!?!?!?
That's a good idea, I shoulda thought of that before I did the others.
Then of course, I never would have gained my expertise at uromancy....
Oh yes please, sharp indeed. Blunt instruments? Hmm… that explains the neighborhood stir filled with complaints of screams and strange noises coming from your place.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/20/2005 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Selah said...
Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work.
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Yeah, and then fix my cat, because he's been, ya know, spraying all over the place.
my eye roll is better'n yours, Corey
but this ROOLZ !!!!!!!
By all means, go ahead and get the cat fixed. But please, keep all sharp instruments away from me. Ouch.
Use a sharp instrument?!?!?!?
That's a good idea, I shoulda thought of that before I did the others.
Then of course, I never would have gained my expertise at uromancy....
Oh yes please, sharp indeed. Blunt instruments? Hmm… that explains the neighborhood stir filled with complaints of screams and strange noises coming from your place.
The city clamped down on my backyard, moonlit sacrifices.
Now they have a stray cat 'problem'..... go figure.  
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/20/2005 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Laika said...
sparknheart said...
Selah said...
Take over brother. No florida for u! Fix this please. Before i come home from work.
Hey Tom,
If you have time today, can you fix the problem of world hunger too? I get home from work around 5pm, I will watch the news.
Yeah, and then fix my cat, because he's been, ya know, spraying all over the place.
my eye roll is better'n yours, Corey
but this ROOLZ !!!!!!!
By all means, go ahead and get the cat fixed. But please, keep all sharp instruments away from me. Ouch.
Use a sharp instrument?!?!?!?
That's a good idea, I shoulda thought of that before I did the others.
Then of course, I never would have gained my expertise at uromancy....
Oh yes please, sharp indeed. Blunt instruments? Hmm… that explains the neighborhood stir filled with complaints of screams and strange noises coming from your place.
The city clamped down on my backyard, moonlit sacrifices.
Now they have a stray cat 'problem'..... go figure.
 That will teach them the value of “the greater good”!
Hey we’re back on topic. Hmm… circular reasoning. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/20/2005 10:32:11 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/20/2005 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
psssst. Would someone instruct me in using the new quote feature?
I don't get it. Well, I know how to quote one person, but multiple quotes ...not so much.
ok
thanks,
selah
Like this?
I'll never tell.
(no more derailing the thread from me!) I think meph's original questions are important. blessings 2 all.
What I hear Mephi saying (and he and Tom on the Carlie thread) is that by giving examples where we are limited in our options ("just war", kill the one child on the train tracks to save the ten), then obviously God is as limited and must use evil and violence as well.
The issue isn't whether we must succumb to "greater good" but whether God must as well.
Post Edited (Laika) : 1/20/2005 10:49:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/20/2005 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
One thing I see is that most that lean toward calvinism ALSo lean toward an OT understanding of God...pic of God..whatever.
Most that lean away from calvin tend toward a NT understanding of God in Jc.
Funny, I'm about as anti-Calvinist as is possible (I outright deny Augustine's inventive doctrine of Original Sin), and yet I see no need to bifurcate the Old and the New Testament "concepts of God."
The Father God who gave the Law of Moses is the one who "speaks tenderly" to His wayward people, pleading with them to return to Him in love, and is revealed as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
The same Jesus who is meek and lowly "lays down the law" when necessary, and even executes criminals against his moral law when necessary (Jesus warned people about Hell more than anyone else in the NT; see also Revelation, in which "the wrath of the Lamb" is poured out upon the wicked).
As John the Apostle said, "He that has the Son has the Father."
John
Post Edited (JEE) : 1/20/2005 12:06:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/20/2005 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Note. I think this is JUST the type of issue that Detreich Bonhoeffer faced when he threw his lot in with the Hitler assassination plot! Is there ANY time where the desire for justice that emerges from love makes the HARD DECISION to use violent means?
Though I have no doubt, based on his earlier strongly pacifistic stance, that Bonhoeffer approached his final decision to join in the plot with great fear and trepidation, and I would not want to "caricaturize" the issues  , it seems to me that at the point at which Bonhoeffer chose violence, that was truly the highest good (most benevolent) thing possible. To allow a known serial murderer to continue on his murderous rampage is the very definition of "complicity in evil." I would even go so far as to say that killing Hitler at that point in his life would have been in a sense merciful towards Hitler, if we believe that one reaps what one sows and that suffering in hell is directly proportionate to one's evil deeds. Stopping Hitler at that point would have both limited the amount of evil he could continue to do as well as limited the degree of suffering he would face in eternity. Additionally, the knowledge of one's imminent death could possibly lead one to repentance. Of course, this is all thinking from the human point of view, and would not be directly applicable to God necessarily.
JohnPost Edited (JEE) : 1/20/2005 12:01:03 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/20/2005 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Selah,
Hmmm. I'm looking back over my post, and I honestly don't know what in the world you're referring to. I was simply giving my perspective, not taking anything "personally." Don't we all bring ourselves to the discussion, in any case? I was only responding to the thread. Perhaps you are projecting your own reactivity upon my post? 
"Please pay particular attention to this part of your statement "even executes criminals against his moral law when necessary" I really want to know how that works itself out...two wills in God, huh?"
Two wills in the sense of contradictory? I see no reason to posit such an absurd idea. I see several examples in the New Testament (presumably the same we all have) of God killing (executing) people when He sees fit--Ananias & Sapphira, a king who didn't give God glory in the Book of Acts, the vast majority of rebellious mankind in the Book of Revelation, and of course, God ultimately tossing most people into hell because of their own freely chosen rebellion against Him (which is what sin is).
I don't see "two wills" being required for this at all. Now if I were to say that God at the same time willed that all would be both damned and saved, THAT would be a contradiction. But to say He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should be bruoght to repentance and yet that His Spirit shall not forever strive with a person and that there is a point at which God says someone's time is up, there's no more a contradiction in that than there is when we say God changes His mind/will when circumstances warrant, and that He is a PERSON who is fully capable of rendering a final (or a temporal) judgment. (See Jeremiah 18 for instance).
JohnPost Edited (JEE) : 1/20/2005 3:38:20 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/20/2005 4:47 PM (GMT -6) | | BACK to the topic...
Selah, I'd like to know your opinion of what I'm sayin'. It does seem to me that the "agonized participant" idea of God truly fits the program. It would appear to be the VERY attitude of an all-loving person in a position where they are FORCED by circumstance and moral integrity to deal harshly with opponents. Don't you think?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 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 |
|
|