 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > McLaren: "(dump) warfare from our language" | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/18/2006 9:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | You guys are moving too fast for me this week. Here's my feelings (without having studied the thread):
1) It's good and necessary to purge from our langauge terms that miscommunicate or terms that we cannot reasonably establish in a way that communicates well. By the latter I mean that sometimes a lone term may really be best, and communicate well, when considered apart from the cultural context, but within that cultural context be taken by most people as too abrasive, too pejorative, too inappropriate, in which case it would take too much time and effort to fight FOR the term. Just find another term. Here McLaren has a point. I can imagine some contexts in which "Onward Christian Soldiers" would be inappropriate because it's so likely to miscommunicate given the worldview of observers.
2) At the same time, SOME aspects of a Christians worldview (like the warfare worldview, the Christus Victor model of atonement, etc.) are violent and warlike AT THEIR ROOTS. They represent a metaphysical violence and struggle, and there's just no getting around using such terms to communicate that worldview. In such cases we have no other choice but to define our terms as carefully as we can and make our case. Those interested in truth will understand. Here I think McLaren's point doesn't apply. I can't imagine how one would begin to communicate the warfare worldview without using some essential warfare vocabulary.
3) Nobody out there has purged all their language of all militaristic terms in all contexts. I don't think that's even possible.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/18/2006 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Just solidifying some things...hoping I'm not being too redundant.
My chief issue is with the fact that war) and warfare language, almost inevitably, has the effect on a "warrior" of the objectification of one's "enemy". This would not be a problem if then tendency weren't so often taking to the conclusion of objectifying PERSONS into "combat objectives"...where we lose ANY sense of empathy or emotional connectedness to the "enemy." One begins to see their enemy combatant not as a PERSON, but a target, threat, or worse...a THING to be destroyed utterly without care, consideration, or conscience. Given this, the idea of using "warfare" as a PRIMARY, GUIDING motif for how we see God, the world, and their relationship is highly problematic...especially if our end goal is reflecting the PERFECT LOVE of God
Again, just like human salvation is an important reality that is part of a LARGER salvific work that God is doing cosmologically...so also is warfare involving persons (spiritual or otherwise) an important reality that is a part of a LARGER work that God is doing: God using any and all proper means at God's disposal to LIBERATE Creation from the mire that it's gotten itself into...and CONSUMATE that liberation into eternity!
It makes more sense to me to use language that doesn't MINIMIZE or EUPHEMIZE, concerning the reality of warfare that we see in the Bible or in our world...but does give PROPER CONTEXT that provide a praxeologically viable framework that HELPS us match means to ends. Let's take the ultimate example: If we were to end up feeling NOTHING BUT hatred and animosity to Satan and his state...or even INDIFFERENCE...as we wrestle against him, haven't we, then, ALREADY LOST what we were fighting for in the first place? If we are not moving towards internalizing the perfect love of God, what good is all the language in the first place? (1 Corinthians 13???) Unless you want to say that God has NO LOVING FEELINGS for people hopelessly, even willfully, locked in their sinful ways who would like nothing more that to see God hurt...then we have something to think about.
Does everyone see my problem here? If we don't provide religio-cultural tools for people to construct a worldview where means don't conflict with ends in moving towards becoming Christ-like into perfect love...we will keep setting ourselves up for failure. We keep wondering WHY it's so hard to genuinely and outrageously love a sinner and utterly and completely hate their sin at the same time. My growing conviction is that part of the issue is with our language as they play out with our affections. If I REALLY, REALLY get it in my head that God is trying to set ALL of us free (with varying results, given the way God has set up Creation) and that warfare I see is an ASPECT or FALLOUT of that activity...then I will look at people, including myself, a different way. I can't HELP but see people differently. I can NO LONGER see any "us/them" on a fundamental level...whereas with a purely "warfare" understanding, I had NO OTHER way to see things. It doesn't get rid of the violence, casualties, and destruction that is found in the reality of warfare...but it does help to remove my ability to allow myself to emotionally DISCONNECT from those people with whom I struggle.
BUT...
If my PRIMARY, GUIDING model for the world is warfare...and we think of the way we THINK of warfare..., I can't help but set up the "other"...PERSONS whom I am opposed to, for whatever reason. The "us/them" IS fundamental and unavoidable. And, far too often, it leaks from us being against Satan and demons...to us being against PEOPLE that we feel are aligned with Satan and demons. And the hatred or indifference that we have for Satan...we, even subconsciously, attach to those people. I know we see this over and over and over again.
Am I just crazy here? See what I'm thinking?
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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 6/18/2006 11:47:26 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/18/2006 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey's idea suggested something like making SIN the "enemy" and then having the warfare view from that standpoint. And for someone who are CLEARLY make that distinction in their own hearts, that's great. But as I see the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", I seriously doubt our general capacity here in America to emotionally compartmentalize the corrupt REALITY from the persons caught up in that corrupt reality. We generally tend to lump things all together. "Those damn drug dealers!" "Those damn terrorists!" More often then not, grossly overgeneralizing and oversimplifying things at best...depersonalizing and objectifying at worst.
Watch what would happen if we had a "War on Gluttony". SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE would probably say, in disdainful manner..."Those damn fat people!"
Look at our track record, y'all. Jesus was TRULY able to separate us from our sin, and in so doing, deal with EACH accordingly. We SUCK at this...especially when we use emotionally charged language of war!
Let's think through our language usage keeping stuff like this in mind.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/18/2006 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
I personally don't think warfare language objectifies people as inevitably as you think. We can struggle against persons without objectifying them. We may need to constantly combat (to use more warfare language) the temptation to objectify persons and the spiritual agents with whom we struggle, but it's doable. And we must do it.
What non-combative language would you suggest we use to articule a warfare worldview? It's kinda like your "complicity" thing with God involved in a conflicted and fallen world. I don't particularly like the word "complicit" to describe it, but provided we're allowed more than one word to explain ourselves I think it's as good a word as any. Same thing with warfare vocabular. It seems the only vocabulary available to express what's really the case. Provided we're careful and caring, I think we'll be fine. Don't you?
Another important point it this-- When it comes to engaging non-believers I wouldn't use warfare language to describe my relationship or tactics with them. That's not necessary to the worldview and it is, like McLaren says, counter-productive. I'd only use warfare language to describe the nuts and bolts of a warfare metaphysic, and this usually isn't openned up with unbelivers is it?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 6/18/2006 12:25:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/18/2006 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I personally don't think warfare language objectifies people as inevitably as you think. We can struggle against persons without objectifying them. We may need to constantly combat (to use more warfare language) the temptation to objectify persons and the spiritual agents with whom we struggle, but it's doable. And we must do it.
What amazes me is how often YOU use the word "struggle" in your correspondence. I mean, ever since your initial posts on this thread. Doesn't this say something to you? Hmmm...
Aren't you making my point FOR me? :wink:
******************************
Tom:
What non-combative language would you suggest we use to articule a warfare worldview? It's kinda like your "complicity" thing with God involved in a conflicted and fallen world. I don't particularly like the word "complicit" to describe it, but provided we're allowed more than one word to explain ourselves I think it's as good a word as any. Same thing with warfare vocabular. It seems the only vocabulary available to express what's really the case. Provided we're careful and caring, I think we'll be fine. Don't you?
Another important point it this-- When it comes to engaging non-believers I wouldn't use warfare language to describe my relationship or tactics with them. That's not necessary to the worldview and it is, like McLaren says, counter-productive. I'd only use warfare language to describe the nuts and bolts of a warfare metaphysic, and this usually isn't openned up with unbelivers is it?
1) Simple question. What is the "nuts and bolts" of a warfare metaphysic? Really. What is it?
Is the warfare we experience in various ways (both spiritual and natural) a FALLOUT of God's struggle for the freedom of God's creation from sin and decay...
OR...
Is God's struggle for freedom of God's creation from sin and decay a FALLOUT of the warfare we experience (both spiritual and natural)?
Which comes first?
I would argue that it's the former. I would argue that God's creation FELL into sin and such...and because of that fall and because of God's chosen interrelationality with the world, God struggles with Creation...and that "struggle", many times, turns into outright warfare.
Really think about it. Imagine that God were COMPLETELY indifferent to Creation. I mean, indifferent on ALL levels. Our fall into sin wouldn't precipitate any "war" at all. We'd just be lost...and that's it. But it is willing interrelationality that God has with Creation that makes it such that God gets involved with us AT ALL. It is THIS painful, loving interrelationality that God has with God's fallen creation that causes God to "strive" with his Creation. To groan with it. This "striving" also FRAMES the "wars" that break out between God and anti-God forces. Unlike us, I would say that war with God is a LAST RESORT. The "struggle" comes BEFORE the "war"
--------------------------------------------------------
2) The only time that warfare language should be used is where it's REALLY and UNAVOIDABLY the case.
Biblical examples include...
--When the people of Israel had WARFARE against their enemies.
--When angels have WARFARE with demons (whatever that looks like)
These are MATTER OF FACT situations where warfare is INTEGRAL to understanding the event itself. It would be ludicrous to attempt to talk about Israel's battles in any depth WITHOUT using some type of warfare language...
However...
when talking about God's project for the world and Jesus's part in that, warfare language is NOT unavoidable and NOT necessary. In speaking about a PRIMARY, MAJOR PARADIGM of going on in our world and how God's involved, warfare language is NOT unavoidable.
It is very simple to talk about...
--Jesus's work as being a CRUCIAL ELEMENT in the liberation of human beings and the rest of Creation from the grasp of sin and death
--Satan's activities being an imminant and continual threat to what God wants to do in this world...and to those PERSONS who are dedicated to God's will
--the ongoing struggle we are in for our very souls
--God, in the end, removing all traces of sin, despair, death, and fragmentation from God's Creation
--God being perfectly loving and continually active in the world to bring life and life more abundantly
...WITHOUT talking in terms of war.
Hmmm...
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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 6/18/2006 1:11:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/18/2006 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi: What amazes me is how often YOU use the word "struggle" in your correspondence. I mean, ever since your initial posts on this thread. Doesn't this say something to you?
Tom: I’ve used it to describe that aspect of my worldview which I feel totally incapable of describing apart from such language. Like you said to me regarding “complicity,” give me some OTHER package of terms to express the warfare worldview. I’m all ears.
Mephi: 1) Simple question. What is the "nuts and bolts" of a warfare metaphysic? Really. What is it?
Tom: Well, at least ONE of the nuts (or bolts) is the reality of wills (angelic and human) choosing to oppose God’s will and purposes. Don’t like “oppose”? Offer something else. I’m all ears. Stand against? Destroy? Combat? Usurp? Undermine? Bring to naught? Any of ‘em will do for me, but they all assume a fundamental, ongoing, and active opposition of wills and purposes with fallout/consequences for us. The reality of that active willful opposition is fundamental to my worldview. Is it not to yours?
Mephi: Is the warfare we experience in various ways (both spiritual and natural) a FALLOUT of God's struggle for the freedom of God's creation from sin and decay...
OR...
Is God's struggle for freedom of God's creation from sin and decay a FALLOUT of the warfare we experience (both spiritual and natural)?
Which comes first?
Tom: What’s amazing to me is that in both options YOU describe our experience in terms of warfare and God’s being involved in a struggle. That’s all I’m saying. We experience real warfare (spiritual, physical, emotional, mental, etc.) and God’s involvement in the world is opposed and hated by real personal agents.
Mephi: Which comes first?
Tom: Doesn’t matter to me. Either way, the struggle/warfare is basic, willful, personal, ongoing, and costly in human terms.
Mephi: I would argue that it's the former. I would argue that God's creation FELL into sin and such...and because of that fall and because of God's chosen interrelationality with the world, God struggles with Creation...and that "struggle", many times, turns into outright warfare.
Tom: I’d agree. But you’re using the disputed words (“struggle” and “warfare”) to describe YOUR view. That’s all I’m saying. I wouldn’t know how to describe what you just described apart from such words. McLaren wants us to dump ALL that ALL the time. I think that’s silly.
Mephi: Really think about it.
Tom: Really, I do.
Mephi: Imagine that God were COMPLETELY indifferent to Creation.
Tom: Impossible to even imagine.
Mephi: I mean, indifferent on ALL levels.
Tom: Even more impossible to imagine. And I mean it—impossible to imagine. I can’t do it.
Mephi: Our fall into sin wouldn't precipitate any "war" at all. We'd just be lost...and that's it. But it is willing interrelationality that God has with Creation that makes it such that God gets involved with us AT ALL. It is THIS painful, loving interrelationality that God has with God's fallen creation that causes God to "strive" with his Creation. To groan with it. This "striving" also FRAMES the "wars" that break out between God and anti-God forces. Unlike us, I would say that war with God is a LAST RESORT. The "struggle" comes BEFORE the "war."
Tom: Let me totally agree. My point is that your using words McLaren is arguing Christians should universally dump. I don’t see how we can do that and still communicate effectively what you’ve just described.
Mephi: 2) The only time that warfare language should be used is where it's REALLY and UNAVOIDABLY the case.
Tom: But be consistent. When you participate in sporting events or when we play games over at my place, don’t insert ANY warfare terms…ever. Like that’s gonna happen. Remember, you can’t empty life of the metaphorical. It enriches our experience. I think it’s silly and just a misuse of political correctness for McLaren to insist we dump ALL warfare talk from ALL our God-talk.
Mephi: However...when talking about God's project for the world and Jesus's part in that, warfare language is NOT unavoidable and NOT necessary. In speaking about a PRIMARY, MAJOR PARADIGM of going on in our world and how God's involved, warfare language is NOT unavoidable.
Tom: I think it is. I honestly wouldn’t know how to articulate my worldview apart from some such language, JUST as you have used it in your examples.
Mephi: It is very simple to talk about...--Jesus's work as being a CRUCIAL ELEMENT in the liberation of human beings and the rest of Creation from the grasp of sin and death
Tom: HOW is Jesus’ work a crucial element in liberating us from Satan’s grasp? Don’t just talk about introductory claims. Get into the nuts and bolts of explaining the WHY and HOW of the Fall, the fallout of it, divine-angelic-human relations, and the PERSONAL wills that fuel all this at great human costs. I don’t see how you can do it without dipping into warfare language. And too boot, I honestly doubt McLaren’s claims that unbelivers are having this HUGE struggle with warfare talk. I just think he’s looking for something to talk about regarding which he can be seen to be chic and concerned about political correctness.
Mephi: --Satan's activities being an imminant and continual threat to what God wants to do in this world...and to those PERSONS who are dedicated to God's will.
Tom: “Threat” sounds like warfare talk to me. But you’re still talking bits and pieces. I’m sure we can imagine a sentence or two of non-warfare talk. But that hardly counts as divulging a worldview.
Mephi: --the ongoing struggle we are in for our very souls
Tom: Warfare talk again.
Mephi: --God, in the end, removing all traces of sin, despair, death, and fragmentation from God's Creation
Tom: HOW does God do that removing? What obstacles stood/stand in his way? Aren’t those obstacles of a personal and malignantly willful sort? Don’t they mean harm to others? Aren’t there wills that “oppose” God’s removing all traces of sin? Is sin and death removed without any REAL, personal, willful, struggle? Are they removed without any real COST to God? Come on.
Mephi: --God being perfectly loving and continually active in the world to bring life and life more abundantly
Tom: Look, those who use warfare terms don’t DENY what you’re saying. I just don’t think people do or should think and talk about ultimate life issues in such cold, clinical, neutral terms. When so much is at stake, surely our language kicks into gear. We employ metaphors the MORE ultimate we believe the issue to be. What you’ve suggested so far can’t expresses the WHOLE of it, the nature and scope of the…well, WAR; I don’t know of any other term in the English language that better expresses it.
But I totally respect anybody who purges all their God-talk of warfare vocab. Cool. If that works. And if I ever meet an unbeliever who REALLY stumbles over my vocab, I'll find out why and do my best to help.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 6/19/2006 8:20:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/18/2006 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
I just want to point out that there are other dimensions to the warfare metaphor than merely the vanquishing of enemies.
and...
I'm concerned about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Today I'm beating the drum that any language system we come up with will necessarily be incomplete. Sure, we can dump warfare language, but whatever we decide to replace it with will have it's own problems.
You've hit it. Yeah. You've hit it square.
THIS is what I'm internally railing against. I couldn't quite come up with it...but you did, Corey!
Overwhelmingly, warfare language has to deal with the vanquishing of enemies! It's INHERENT in the idea of warfare, especially when we are talking about warfare between PERSONS (as opposed to warfare against some impersonal thing). The language lends itself to "us/them" fragmentation, and objectification unto depersonalization. We literally see this ALL...OF...THE...TIME.
My contention is that "struggle" language INCLUDES aspects of the "warfare" language that reflects what Tom has been talking about--a fundamental, sustained, active clash of opposing wills--while at the same time, minimizing the room (of which we don't need much!) that we have to fall into the objectification of persons who are actively aligned with the reality that we oppose.
Here's something. Please show me what problems that we will have if we commit to limiting warfare language (NOT eliminating it totally like McLaren seems to be saying)...AND...NOT having warfare as a primary, guiding worldview motif for how we see our world? Make it clear for me what baby is getting thrown out.
-----------------------
I want to "dump" warfare as a PRIMARY, GUIDING WORLDVIEW MOTIF with which people internalize their perceptions of themselves and their world.. I also want to "dump" language that emerges from holding such a worldview that ends up fundamentally POLARIZING persons into an "us/them" category. If perfect love doesn't place people into "us/them" categories...AND...if we there is a universal sin problem...then we would do well to stay away from ways of thinking that promote this kind of polarization.
Doc wants people to see themselves FUNDAMENTALLY as "co-warriors" with God who wage war against Satan, demons, and their kingdom of darkness.
I want people to see themselves FUNDAMENTALLY as "co-liberators" with God who struggle with the sin within THEMSELVES, others (Satan and demons included), and their world.
In my mind, this our existence is not FUNDAMENTALLY a continual war. It's FUNDAMENTALLY a continual rescue attempt that has ended up being war.
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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 6/18/2006 6:09:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/18/2006 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | | Heh.. I KNEW you were going to ask me, "so what exactly is the baby?"
Off hand, without much reflection, I'll describe the "baby" of the warfare worldview as I see it:
- Satan (who's very name means enemy or adversary) regards us with maximal contempt. This world we live in is not neutral. We need a worldview that makes sense of the attacks that come, of the radical evil that we encounter. We ourselves are objectified, and can expect to be treated accordingly. War is declared on us.
- Ultimately, the kingdom of heaven will utterly destroy and replace the kingdom of darkness. Military victory is not the last thing that comes to mind.
- Reinforces other metaphors used throughout scripture, such as the importance of putting on the full armor of God. This metaphor makes better sense if we're getting dressed for an actual battle.
I'm sure we could come up with more or better reasons with a little more time and thought. Post Edited (Corey) : 6/18/2006 9:56:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/18/2006 11:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph Man said:
Here's something. Please show me what problems that we will have if we commit to limiting warfare language (NOT eliminating it totally like McLaren seems to be saying)...AND...NOT having warfare as a primary, guiding worldview motif for how we see our world? Make it clear for me what baby is getting thrown out.
and
In my mind, this our existence is not FUNDAMENTALLY a continual war. It's FUNDAMENTALLY a continual rescue attempt that has ended up being war.
I think Tom's argument would stand at this point. So you would admit that we should not TOTALLY ELIMINATE IT? If so, then how would YOU not objectify your enemies?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
I think Tom's argument would stand at this point. So you would admit that we should not TOTALLY ELIMINATE IT? If so, then how would YOU not objectify your enemies?
Ok. Not I'm not feeling like I'm being understood.
What do you think I'm saying? Do you think that, from the beginning, I've been saying that we should remove every word that could ever be associated with warfare from our vocabulary? Is that what you've been reading me as saying? I don't think that it could be that BECAUSE there is some overlapping language between "struggle" and "warfare"...just as Tom's correspondence has been showing.
Actually, I'm beginning to think this is not the most helpful way to go about this. Let's turn things around...
Tom said:
I personally don't think warfare language objectifies people as inevitably as you think. We can struggle against persons without objectifying them. We may need to constantly combat (to use more warfare language) the temptation to objectify persons and the spiritual agents with whom we struggle, but it's doable. And we must do it.
Ok. Fine. It seems like the warfare languare and worldview is here to stay for some. So let's just get down to brass tacks with that.
For someone who has a fundamental view of warfare (this means self-understanding as spiritual warrior and all that), what are the things that can be done to internally...
1) prevent the "us/them" fragmentation
2) remain positively and emotionally connected to those actively promoting realities we oppose.
3) prevent objectification into depersonalization.
It seems like people are agreeing with me that we don't want these. So, what actions or steps are key to prevent this from happening...assuming that the warfare worldview and all the corresponding language is kept fully in effect?
So, let me see how this works. How do you keep some measure of genuine, sustained empathy in your hearts for persons like Satan or Zarqawi, for that matter?
Terribly interested,
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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/19/2006 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, originally the question (with regard to McLaren) WAS about DUMPING ALL the warfare language. And all we were saying was that you can't TOTALLY get away from that. And to the extent that you use it? To what extent would you NOT be objectifying your enemies?
Plus, using terms such as "freedom struggle" may invariably misconstrue the REALNESS and SERIOUSNESS of the battle. "Warfare Lite." People would generally be consigned to NOT taking the battle seriously ENOUGH which has been our experience until recently.
By the way, does Christ not come right out and tell us, "Love your ENEMIES?" I don't think Christ was being unrealistic in saying that by doing so you are going to "make or win over a friend." They'll still very much be our ENEMY. Hence, the warfare language as Tom says does not INEVITABLY objectify people.
Now, you may say that the temptation to objectify others is heightened with the use of such language, but that is a temptation with all language. Some language can be used to "dehumanize" (which is probably just another way of saying "objectify") but this is not the fault of the language per se. It would be the fault of the motivation of the one using the language.
Again, Meph Man, you ADMIT that we will use such language but you know that that does not NECESSARILY entail objectification.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/19/2006 8:40:25 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom, you're so cool/calm/collected :)
I'm over here thinking "mephi, come ON! I bet Mother Teresa lived her entire Christian life without "empathy for satan" and did just fine." Why would we wonder about such things when the world is going to h** in a handbasket?
To try to say something on topic, I see a lot of warfare references in scripture. The war is against satan and his cohorts. That's the whole purpose for warfare language. I see nothing on loving satan. Maybe you can show me Jesus loving satan somewhere. That would help.
selah
Post Edited (selah) : 6/19/2006 9:45:31 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Plus, using terms such as "freedom struggle" may invariably misconstrue the REALNESS and SERIOUSNESS of the battle. "Warfare Lite." People would generally be consigned to NOT taking the battle seriously ENOUGH which has been our experience until recently.
Um...the only way that could happen is if someone were to completely divorce the conversation from the realities that REAL PEOPLE experience every day. The entanglements of sin (and their destructive force) are evident everywhere...and not hard to notice at all. As I've said, my motif FRAMES these experiences.
********************
Brandon:
By the way, does Christ not come right out and tell us, "Love your ENEMIES?" I don't think Christ was being unrealistic in saying that by doing so you are going to "make or win over a friend." They'll still very much be our ENEMY. Hence, the warfare language as Tom says does not INEVITABLY objectify people.
For FALLEN, SINFUL human beings like us, it does, more often than not. I'm saying that a new motif can take this into account.
*********************
Brandon:
Now, you may say that the temptation to objectify others is heightened with the use of such language, but that is a temptation with all language. Some language can be used to "dehumanize" (which is probably just another way of saying "objectify" but this is not the fault of the language per se. It would be the fault of the motivation of the one using the language.
Listen to what I am saying. I am saying that, GIVEN our demonstrated fallen tendencies in this area, it would be better to use another motif other that warfare to ultimately frame all this. If we were Christ...OR if we generally had our head on straight about WHAT (not WHO) the enemy really is, then I wouldn't think that the language would be a problem. But since we have the uncanny tendency to fall into the dehumanization trap when it comes to warfare language dealing with other persons, I think we should consider this. Have I not been saying this??
****************************************
Brandon:
Again, Meph Man, you ADMIT that we will use such language but you know that that does not NECESSARILY entail objectification.
I'll put it like this. If I were to tell a non-believer about the Christian worldview, I would frame it as a "freedom stuggle." I would use terminology fitting that point of view, and I would frame the "warfare" that we see in terms of that more encompassing motif. I would NOT want this person, if they came to faith, seeing themselves fundamentally as a "warrior" against other persons (including Satan!). I would not tell this person that they have to think of themselves in the trenches of a war with people shooting at them all the time, bombs going off and all that. Where there is a DEFINITE us/them thing going on...
I would want them to see themselves fundamentally as a "liberator" who attempts to embody and spread God's life-giving freedom. I would want them to see the world as being enslaved in various ways, THEMSELVES INCLUDED, and that God is trying to free everyone from their bondage. A "Matrix" of unimaginably destructive proportions! Many of the oppressed (all human beings) oppress others. And insofar as these persons actively support sin's oppression in different ways, we must struggle even more...not only the freedom of the people they oppress, but for THEIR freedom as well. This MAY end up in "battles" occuring where the best we can do is hope for the VANQUISH of the active, unrepentant oppressors. But we would understand this vanquishing as a LOSS of great proportions, to God and the world. Our "cheering" for the vanquishing of these persons would have a thread of melancholy throughout...for even as we would be glad about the stemming of evil, we would be totally aware that the vanquished were not "freed" (at least as much as they could have been).
THIS is how I want people to see the world.
I honestly think that this is a better, MORE POWERFUL, MORE APPROPRIATE motif...than making the warfare motif our primary, guiding motif.
Sue me.
***********************************
Mephi: How do you keep some measure of genuine, sustained empathy in your hearts for persons like Satan or Zarqawi, for that matter?
Tom: Easy. You pray for them. I'm not so sure about Satan. I've never prayed for Satan. Not 100% sure on that one. And I don't know that WE rescue him. Let's leave that one to God to do on his own. But for our enemies here on earth, the ones we're "rescuing," yeah, Jesus tells us to pray for them and bless them. That'll keep it personal.
Praying for one's "enemy" is definitely on the right road, I would say. But obviously, both you and I have heard prayers that are less than empathetic, right? Like the...
"Oh, Lord. We pray that you would remove Sister so-and-so's blackened heart and help her stop being so mean" type of praying. You would agree with me that not all prayer should be considered equal, right?
Any other things that we would do?
********************************
Selah:
I'm over here thinking "mephi, come ON! I bet Mother Teresa lived her entire Christian life without "empathy for satan" and did just fine." Why would we wonder about such things when the world is going to h** in a handbasket? Mephi, you know me and the whole "love your enemy, satan" thing... NOT gonna happen. God will have to judge me for that.
Yo. You do what you wanna do. Hopefully, you see that this whole thing goes BEYOND just trying to get people to love Satan. I'm hoping that you see that the major thrust behind this whole thing is considering what our idea of PERFECT LOVE is. In my personal view, I cannot see perfect love being either utterly disdainful OR indifferent towards persons who are MIRED in sin and destruction. I just can't see it.
If someone can explain to me how a perfectly loving being who supposedly loves ALL BEINGS unconditionally can REFUSE to love a being based upon them being mired in sin, I am all friggin ears. Otherwise, it would seem to me that God would have "infinite sorrow" for his lost ones. And if that IS how God would feel about it, then isn't that the way WE should feel about it?
POW quoting someone else:
"God loves even those who 'choose hell' over his love... And a part of that is "the infinite sorrow of God."
So, selah. Tell me how it works for you.
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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 6/19/2006 9:53:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 10:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Here's how I do it Mephi:
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. 44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth,[b] because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.[/b] 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
If he is a liar and (in his own nature) the opposite of the truth (there IS NO truth in him). Then, he is not good. He IS evil.
And
Rom 12:9
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Other enemies are not (at least as far as we can discern) completely without truth/good. Satan is. He is our enemy...not flesh and blood. I don't think that's confusing at all.
But that's just off the top of my head...
selah | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Question for Selah:
Do you REALLY THINK that the Lord Jesus either feels utter contempt or indifference towards Satan...RIGHT NOW???
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 | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | yep. But remember, I believe in scripture, hell, ananias and sapphira, the jealous God, the just God, the sovereign (as in he set this thing up) God, woe to this and woe to that, and Christus Victor (victor over something!)... so... yes, I believe God hates satan and has reserved a place for the devil and his angels. That place is probably not on his lap. That's what I'm thinkin.
also, I don't know how to do life loving both the lover AND THE enemy/hater of my soul. That seems MUCH more confusing.
I love you o hater of my soul????????????????
selah
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | By the way meph, I don't know what you mean by this: "We get TICKED OFF because the people we are telling to HATE Satan can't find a way to unconditionally LOVE other beings!!"
I don't get ticked off. It's hard for me to unconditionally love people sometimes too. Why get ticked off?
love ya,
t
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
Here's how I do it Mephi:
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. 44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
If he is a liar and (in his own nature) the opposite of the truth (there IS NO truth in him). Then, he is not good. He IS evil.
And
Rom 12:9
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Other enemies are not (at least as far as we can discern) completely without truth/good. Satan is. He is our enemy...not flesh and blood. I don't think that's confusing at all.
But that's just off the top of my head...
If this is your line of thinking, then you are saying something like what Doc said before. Using the character solidification idea, you would say that in Satan there is nothing else to love. He IS sin. His sin has removed his personhood...and he IS evil.
Fine. Then I'll pull the same reducio ad absurdum that I did with Doc. (Actually, this was BEFORE the whole universalism discussion. Just to make the note.)
This was basically how it went...
--------------------------------------------
Me: So, Doc, it's possible for beings to solidify themselves to such an extent in sin that there is nothing there to have loving feelings toward. Not even feelings of sorrow. They effectively BECOME the evil and sin they do. Is that right?
Doc: Yes
Me: And Satan fits this bill?
Doc: Yes. This is why there's no reason to love Satan or "mourn" for Satan.
Me: Ok. Cool. Is it possible for a human being on earth to solidify themselves in sin?
Doc: Yes. That's what character solidification is about.
Me: No, I mean COMPLETELY. Is it possible for a human being to solidify themselves to a point of irrevocably being "merged" with their sin.
Doc pauses briefly.
Doc: Well, yeah. I'd have to say so. Maybe not a huge amount of people...but, yes.
Me: Ok. So, doesn't that mean that it's possible that there may be people walking around on the planet RIGHT NOW whom God doesn't love?
Doc pauses again.
Me: Well, think about it. If total character solidification can happen before death...and God effectively doesn't love people who are solidified irrevocably in sin...doesn't that means that there may be some living human beings that God doesn't love?
Doc: Hmm. Never thought about that. But if character solidification happens like we are saying then, I guess that's an outcome. Well, I guess so then.
Me: Wow. That's interesting. Because Jesus tells us to love our enemies. To love our neighbors. If it is the case that some of our enemies and/or neighbors may be utterly solidified in their sin...doesn't this mean that God is COMMANDING us to do something that God HIMSELF cannot do? It's God telling us to love the unlovable?
Doc: Well...not exactly...
Me: Actually, let's get more to the point. If I believe that some human beings can be fundamentally unlovable, isn't this going to, IN SOME WAY, affect the way I look at people...AND affect my ability to love all humans I see unconditionally?
Doc again pauses. Longer, this time.
-----------------------------------
We changed the subject from there. And we've never picked up that convo. But I never forget that convo. To this day. I think that he knew that I had him. Beliefs are interrelated. You can't assert a belief not think that said belief may have ramifications even more far-reaching than you originally thought. You CAN'T just localize the "hating" effect to Satan. For consistent people, it WILL go beyond that.
THIS is the kinda stuff that makes this conversation important to me. Saying that God is perfect love and saying that we are to try to BE like God has VERY far-reaching ramifications in my mind. Including the way we should frame the way we see the world.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Personally, I don't have an issue believing that some people are solidified "evil" to the extent there is no good left in them (or maybe demons are walkin around - who knows!). The thing I don't see in your convo with Doc (that's hard to believe) is that he didn't say something like "YES, but SINCE WE CAN'T KNOW who these solidified evil people ARE, we are to love all. God can/will deal with people according to what HE knows (vengence is mine, says the Lord). We aren't to judge them...or write them off as evil."
Didn't he say something like that?
Doc's a lot smarter than I ... so I'm guessing he did.
Post Edited (selah) : 6/19/2006 10:50:15 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 101 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:06 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 |
|
|