 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/18/2007 9:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | | I think I need someone to explain to me Greg's position on the use of force. Recently, he posted this movie review on his blog:
The Kingdom: ** Yes, another brutal movie that is hard to watch. It’s main value, I think, is that we can’t opt out of the violent tit-for-tat game of the world unless we become thoroughly disgusted with it and convinced of its futility. This movie will help move you in this direction, if you’re not already there. The very last scene of this (overly long) movie is positively brilliant.
He has said much about the cyclical nature of violence. But now I'm wondering if by violence, he is including the use of the "sword" by the State. I had assumed he was since he seemed to be saying that Christians should not use force as a police, e.g. But then he said it might not be the best thing to pull out of Iraq because of what might follow. Can someone help me? Is Greg saying that what American forces in Iraq are doing is violence? Which will lead to a "tit-for-tat" violent reaction ad-infinitum? I'M SO CONFUSED!
Is it just me, or is Greg expecting people to read WAY between the lines on this stuff. Doesn't this confusion seem to create walls instead of tearing them down? Doesn't it cause people to think they're being judged when maybe they're not?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/18/2007 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | One of the things I'm confused about is whether Greg is saying that God is the one who ought to providentially keep us in Iraq (to minimize suffering, or something), and therefore we ought not be troubled by it. If so, that's one thing. But he never articulates that thought. It sounds like he's actually saying that AMERICANS might very well OUGHT to stay there. But that means that people OUGHT to exercise their free-will to continue what I'm thinking he would call violence. And yet he says that violence is cyclical. Which means that he thinks people should choose to continue violence EVEN THOUGH IT'S CYLICAL.
I know that where much is given much is required, but I'm seriously questioning whether any man alive has been given the kind of wisdom to adjudicate these things that Greg so effortlessly pontificates on. I mean, if I was convinced that all force/violence is cyclical, how could I know it's better to continue violence in Iraq? I'm at a complete loss to understand the mind of Greg on this matter. I finally get the post-millenial approach he takes for Christians. But I can not yet fathom what he's saying about the ethical grounds other humans ought to reason from--or if he even thinks other humans can ethically reason.
In one blog, he actually said that it is demonically arrogant for one human to kill another. WHAT THEN IS HE REALLY SAYING????
Hey Greg, I don't read minds. Spell it out for me!!!!!! At this late date, a clarification about your judgments on force/violence is more imperative than a movie review!!!!! 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/18/2007 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
Greg: "The very last scene of this (overly long) movie is positively brilliant."
What was that last scene?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/18/2007 9:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | It was a cheap machination to draw moral equivalence between all parties. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/19/2007 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/21/2007 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Not going to speak for Boyd and not claiming he is always consistent, but he could be using something similar to Oldham's middle axioms. In the case of Iraq it might go something like this: The Christian "does not resist an evil man" and submits to authority like Christ rather than taking it for himself. However, there are those who do not follow these commands of Jesus. While the Church encourages others to submit to Christ's lordship and seeks to embody the kingdom, it does not remain deaf and dumb to the outside world. It is (if done in the right Spirit) an act of love to speak to the outside world in its own terms, so long as the Church remains faithful to its calling to embody the kingdom and preach the gospel. So in the case of Iraq, it is clear that the teachings of Jesus have little to no bearing on the decisions being made. Preemptive strikes, returning violence with violence, and accepting innocent death as the cost of a higher goal are directly opposed to the Kingdom of God. So while the Church continues to seek the reconciliation of those who oppose God's Kingdom, it also recognizes that in the meantime military action by Americans in the region is likely to save more life than an abrupt removal of American military. That doesn't mean that military action is somehow consistent with Christianity. It just means that it is the best choice remaining for people who refuse to follow Christ's teaching.
That was the non-pc version. Didn't feel like sprinkling disclaimers throughout. But it should be said, few or no Christians keep the teachings of Christ perfectly or consistently. Most sincere Christians seem to believe that there are cases where military action is not sinful, and I wouldn't claim that Christ's grace does not extend to them in the same way it extends to me.
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 11/21/2007 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: So while the Church continues to seek the reconciliation of those who oppose God's Kingdom, it also recognizes that in the meantime military action by Americans in the region is likely to save more life than an abrupt removal of American military.
Jeff: I look at that statement like a do statements about coporeal punishment of children. I think the vast majority of people who defend coporeal punishment do so because they believe it CAN be a positive thing. I've never heard those people say, "Well, I know all force is cyclical, but I'm hoping when it cycles back it'll be less problematic than the whipping I gave little Johnny." On the contrary, most people believe force can decrease the negativity in the world precisely because they DON'T believe all force is cyclical.
IOW, it's beyond me to see how we can make calculations of how much force to use if AMERICAN force is going to end up being cyclically expressed in the future, too. In which case, we're just adding on to the cycle. So if we knew the world would end in 5 years, that would be one thing. Cause then there may not be enough time for the cycle. But these decisions aren't made with any regard for the world coming to an end. So the TOTAL number of lives cost by exercising force can't be calculated, to my mind, if the future, inevitable (because of the supposed cyclic nature of violence) violence we are causing is taken into account. And THOSE lives that are taken by that FUTURE violence should ALSO count in the calculation. Yet Greg seems to disregard THEM.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/21/2007 6:12:58 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/25/2007 8:42 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: To claim that my present violent choices make me responsible for the future choices of others, we must assume that I effect those future decisions rather than simply influencing them. And this assumption robs others of moral capacity. I'm fine laying blame for a lasting influence on present actions. But I don't know how we can extent one's culpability to the deliberately made choices of others.
Jeff: That's precisely the point. To say that force/violence is cyclical is to say that there is a necessary cause-effect relation between the initial force/violence and some subsequent force/violence. This is exactly what most people don't believe. Furthermore, most people believe that we can reasonably make inferences from analogy to determine which kinds and instances of force/violence are deterring, as opposed to being merely provocative of retaliatory wrath.
Like I said to you a long time ago, I've heard call-in's to radio programs where people expressed thanks that their parents disciplined them. Because they perceived that discipline as having deterred them from evils they would have otherwise committed. I suspect there are many cases throughout history where government force was perceived as deterring by some who would have otherwise done things they ought not have.That is what Paul seems to be saying in Rom. 13, at least. It would be virtually impossible to prove otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not saying that governments (or parents, for that matter) are particularly good at deterring. In fact, I think they're not. Because I think the most effective deterrent is a just recompense. And most governments aren't particularly just. What's more, they are unjust by design. And that is why reformers in government rarely affect significant change in a positive direction. The opposition is just too powerful.
Regardless, Paul argues that the instilling of fear and the encouragement of good BY GOVERNMENT is a positive good, overall. It's a utilitarian good insomuch as it is not accomplished justly. But government serves God's purpose for it, albeit less than perfectly. Therefore, we owe them taxes, etc. But if all force/violence was cyclical, it would be impossible to understand how the government could be anything but a positive evil. Yet Greg won't argue this.
That's why I see him as inconsistent. And if Greg feels uncomfortable advocating the cessation of force in Iraq, it's beyond me how he is thinking rationally by simultaneously telling me that said force is cyclical. The very fact that he won't advocate ceasing the use of force in Iraq seems to reveal that he, like most people, doesn't really believe that all force is cyclical. But then why say that? It's confusing.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/25/2007 9:05:15 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/26/2007 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Ultimately, aren't nearly all Christians in agreement that strictly speaking violence is not cyclical? Whatever our eschatology, we tend to agree that the lion will lie with the lamb, that swords will be made into plows. Holding the open view, I have a very hard time with the idea that violence is strictly and causally cyclical. Not to say that it does not exert enormous influence. Abused children always find themselves in some sort of abusive relationship as adults. Exceptions to this rule are miraculous. The same is true of communities and nations. But miracles do happen. Every so often someone will show a third way aside from one of the two waring sides.
I don't know about Greg, but to Christians I am fine with advocating cessation of violence. With organizations operating under a system which is founded on the idea violence such an advocacy is the same as asking them not to exist. If we work with the assumption that these organizations have determined to continue this system (not exactly a wild assumption), then the next best thing is asking them to limit violence. I'm not qualified to decide what is the best utilitarian option. Apparently, Greg thinks he is. Whatever. If a utilitarian decision is to be made, it seems the Iraqi people should be the ones to make it. To my uninformed understanding, it looks as though most Iraqis want a continued American military presence. Seems that's what their elected leaders tend to want. I prefer the imitation of Christ, but when speaking to American policy-makers or to most voters, this is not an option.
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 11/27/2007 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: I'm not qualified to decide what is the best utilitarian option.
Jeff: No one is authorized to do so, in any case. There is not even a hint in the bible, to my knowledge, that God ever authorized the use of force for utilitarian purposes without regard for justice. And it is because war is so difficult to wage justly and because men are so "swift to shed blood" that "just war" criteria are so stringent. That's why I can't understand why Greg can even say the words he says about continuing force. A frankly utilitarian use of force is wrong, IMO.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/27/2007 6:14:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/27/2007 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | I agree that it's wrong. I should have said I'm not qualified to decide the least evil utilitarian option.
I think it's kinda like the C. S. Lewis article on the other thread. If your reading is correct, he starts by ignoring what I believe to be the appropriate theory. So he's left to deciding between two bad options. I'd call it a moot point. Hauerwas would call it uninteresting. But we can still play his game, pretending that the best options are off the table. Sure, Lewis' theory of judgment is wrong. But I think he does make a good case for it being less wrong than other options. Likewise with Greg, I don't know how he (or anybody no matter what his or her level of expertise) can sort through the facts and lies and probabilities of Iraq. But assuming such a task is possible, I think he could justifiably speak to the situation if he is careful. If my friend asks me whether he should privately hate his brother or violently take out his hatred on all passersby, I would say, "Neither, but until you've managed to forgive, don't harm others."
In simpler situations entertaining the utilitarian discussion is justifiable, so long as we remember that it is not our discussion and that we are called to lead people out from it. God used genocide, dictatorship, and war. I don't think he condones those things by working through them. But he speaks to people using the language descended from the very way of thinking he hopes to free them from. How else could he speak to them?
IOW, Greg's choice of a side within the discussion does not necessarily imply that he condones the premises that the discussion is built upon.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:11 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 |
|
|