 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > McLaren: "(dump) warfare from our language" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 11:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | Selah:
"YES, but SINCE WE CAN'T KNOW who these solidified evil people ARE, we are to love all. God can/will deal with those people (vengence is mine, says the Lord). We aren't to judge them...or write them off as evil."
Actually, you are right. That was part of the conversation. He said pretty much what you thought he would. I responded to him that doing this still couldn't stem the IDEA of human beings being fundamentally UNLOVABLE in the mind, once planted there. There is a difference, I said, between REALLY believing that every human being you see is genuinely lovable, no matter how hardened, evil, or nefarious they may seem...and REALLY believing that, for some human beings, their behavior merely REVEALS their irrevocability. For people walking around with the latter idea in their head TRULY BELIEVED, I couldn't see how their thought life and behavior wouldn't be affected in some way...some dissonance created. I just pressed the last question again.
T., you know how the mind works, boo. It would be this. You tell someone that some human beings walking the earth were malicious aliens that are trying to take over the earth. Some of the signs of people who MAY be the aliens are bad epileptic seizures. They find whatever compelling reasons to believe you. I mean REALLY deep-in-their-heart believe you. Do you really think that whenever they see a person having an seizure, it WON'T come up in their mind the genuine possibility that THIS person MAY be a malicious alien? Do you think that they will default to treating ALL epileptics they meet as totally normal human beings? What if they have extended experience with an person who has bad seizures pretty regularly? Are they really going to TOTALLY keep it out of their mind that this person may be a malicious alien?
Hmmm...
You KNOW the mind, T. Deeply held, internalized beliefs have IMPACTS on how we behave. This is why we must be careful about what we believe. Isn't that correct, counselor? 
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 11:08:03 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/19/2006 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | My problem, as we've talked about it before, is that this view removes all distinctiveness of the object of God's love. On this view, it seems that God's love for me is no different his love for any other being, beit Satan or the lowest cockroach. Meph, doesn't your tagline, "God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it." entail that God's valuation of us is at his discretion? Doesn't it follow that God could very plausibly decide to NOT find certain beings meaningful? I don't sense the problem you seem to feel with God not loving certain beings.
I'll have to say, though, that I don't believe that there are any humans that are completely and irreversibly solidified against God. Post Edited (Corey) : 6/19/2006 11:21:36 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/19/2006 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | 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.
And they have done so in no small part because they don't realize what is at stake--so I don't think so. Yes. Sinful realities are all around us. But I don't see how recognizing sinful reality has upped the ante that we aren't in a war or that it is real. We've had THIS kinda language going on for a lot longer than the warfare language and Christians have idly sat by doing sqwat for various theological and socio/cultural reasons.
Listen, I'm all for seeing warfare motif within a wider salvific framework. What I'm not so keen on is changing the language completely. That in changing the language of the warfare motif we inevitably "lose something" of theological value. Again, I'm not even totally against your use of "freedom struggle" as this could be a nuance of the warfare motif. But it seems that I haven't heard a good enough reason to not retain the language as you yourself would admit to not only doing but DO.
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.
But that is not totally the problem of language. What would you do to the stories and language of the warfare motifs found in scripture? How should we rephrase Christ's "Love your ENEMIES?" Should we say something more along the lines of "Love those who are in antithesis to you?" By the way, if part of the problem is the "actual sinful realities of everyday living" (as we both agree on) then it would be those things that are in large part the problem of dehumanization not the language of warfare or "polemical language." I admit that the warfare motif could be a temptation to dehumanize, but the real problem does not lie there. I can't say that I have ever thought in terms of dehumanizing people because I use such language. At the forefront of my thinking is simply the seriousness of the of the "freedom struggle."
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??
Yes. And if there could be a fallen tendency to dehumanize then could there not be a fallen tendency that will accompany us if we don't retain the warfare language on some level? Sin can cut both ways you know? Sin could very well be our not taking up rightful dominion as God has intend for us to do as we have a tendency for this as well. You may say that your "freedom struggle" accounts for that--but again, it seems to me that you are ESSENTIALLY stealing from the warfare motif and nuancing it slightly.
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...
Even though they REALLY DO WAR AGAINST freewill agents.  But this is what I think Tom and I are saying. The "warfare" to be framed, is it in all reality somehow less a war? A real freedom STRUGGLE? Regardless, probably in other countries, that might be the most apropos thing to do. In ours it might not be. All, I'm saying is that there are enough metaphors in scripture "to go around." If one is not appropriate for our generational context, hey, we can use another. But let's not "downplay" or "sugar coat" what is actually going on, which is what the fuss is all about. By the way, I just don't go around throwing out there any metaphor without thinking about my context.
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).
But again, your "freedom struggle" language is soooo warfare-like. You end up inevitably using that language within your "liberator," "freedom fighter" motif!
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 11:24:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
My problem, as we've talked about it before, is that this view removes all distinctiveness of the object of God's love. On this view, it seems that God's love for me is no different his love for any other being, beit Satan or the lowest cockroach. Meph, doesn't your tagline, "God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it." entail that God's valuation of us is at his discretion? Doesn't it follow that God could very plausibly decide to NOT find certain beings meaningful? I don't sense the problem you seem to feel with God not loving certain beings.
Hmmm...
What IF God's love for us is NO GREATER OR LESS for anyone or anything? I'm not trying to be smarmy, but I am thinking about the Good Master parable. Doesn't God have the right to lavish God's love and goodness on EVERYTHING that God sees fit? Would we be OFFENDED that God would love Satan and cockroaches...just as much as God loves us? Now, that's an interesting prospect.
Also, if you remember the conversation about God's ad extra contingent expression of God's inner nature, we said that God's decision to lovingly interact with us was COTERMINOUS with God's decision to create in the first place. Like one of the "rules" that God decided to play by. When God created, God bound Godself to expressing Godself relationally SOLELY in terms of his ad intra, which is perfect love. This cashes out to say that...
Whatever God relates to in Creation, in whatever context, God relates to it in a perfectly loving way.
This means that, though we are treated different, God has NO LESS OR MORE LOVE for you than he does for me...than he does for Hitler or Zarqawi...than he does for Satan...than he does for a cockroach. God allows the sun to shine on the just and unjust.
Oh, and don't forget how we discussed something...even before this last convo. That God's sustaining grace was an expression of love. Meaning ALL things that exist are beneficiaries of God's sustaining love...EVEN Satan.
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 6/19/2006 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | OK...
1) Even those who adopt a warfare worldview model (like Greg), still posit over top of THAT non-warfare divine purposes for creation. Even if God knew sin and war would inevitably errupt, that doesn't mean his purposes and desires, the way he wants to relate to creation, are war-like. First and foremost there is the sheer love and goodness of God in God's desires to create and his purposes for creation. Point is: even for Doc, there's a fundamental non-warfare love and goodness that's at the heart of the warfare worldview. This means that the warfare worldview doesn't claim that 'war' is inherent to the cosmos. It's a foreign element. Sin is falleness and brokeness. It's 'lack'. So whatever warfare and struggle sin introduces into creation, it's an invasion into an otherwise good and loving creation. That goodness and love ought to be MORE fundamental to our worldview than war. THIS is what Mephi is trying to say (I got ya back Bro). He's saying that if our (and God's) primary focus really is loving relationality, if that's really MORE fundamental to our worldview, then why not let our worldview get titled by THAT? Why name our worldview after some secondary infecteous invasion (viz., sin and 'war') into this originally good and loving creation?
I think it's a matter of perspective and how one goes about actually sharing one's worldview. I see this loving purpose as the heart of my worldview. That's where I start. But sin's infection is SO widespread, SO universal, and the consequent war SO all-consuming and costly that it gets its own headlines and eats up a lot of our attention and language. So I can see how one might think proponents of the warfare model are "into" war and violence. But a "worldview" is about describing not just what the world was meant or supposed to be, but how it IS. And war is what it is, even if the struggle on God's side is ultimately about rescuing and restoring a warring creation. 2) How do we emphasize the reality of the inevitable war we're all in, a war that must show up in our language and worldview, but still posit some more fundamental, non-war, purpose to creation? Well, we talk about it. We internalize it. And nobody does that more than Greg. Here's the modern-day trumpeter of the warfare worldview and he talks about love and forgiveness more than anything else. I can't imagine anybody feeling objectified by Greg's warfare worldview. 3) So let's posit a real, personal, war of wills that has engulfed a creation that was not determined for such war but rather for love. How does that not do it? Is more than this really required? 4) Remember Paul's words: "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against..." If Mephi wants to say that ultimately even these fallen powers, demonic forces, rebellious angels, even Satan himself will be reconciled to God, fine. I don't think this has to require us to deny that we are now engaged in a real war against them. You can be in a war with persons and keep in mind all the while that they are personal agents who think and choose whom you're warring against. We can keep this in mind because WE are also pesonal agents who think and choose. So we just choose to remember that we struggle not against flesh and blood but against angelic/demonic agents who are personal in the sense that they think and choose. How much of them remains truly personal? I don't know. If you're Mephi, you're going to say there's core to personal agents (angelic and human) that cannot be ultimately erased and that this core will one day be redemed. If you take a non-universalistic approach you'll say that certainly Satan (and likely all his cohorts) are rational agents who have irrevocably spent whatever personal potential they had for loving relationality with God. So they're roast in hell forever or be annihilated. But none of this really matters. I don't see why universalists can't struggle just as non-universalists do with objectifying people. And there's nothing in the warfare worldview that necessarily objectifies people. So we're cool! Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 6/19/2006 11:34:57 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/19/2006 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, I just thought about something. Let's think about the "dominion" idea I spoke of as well. I can't tell you how much "negative sinful tendency" this has created for people. Is all "rule and reigning with Christ" language to be eliminated from our vocabulary because of this? Does not the problem of domination lie else where like wrong ideas of Christ like dominion? How would you propose a truly Christ-like dominion? If so, would we "lose something" if we used another vocab or idea?
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 11:47:08 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
1) Even those who adopt a warfare worldview model (like Greg), still posit over top of THAT non-warfare divine purposes for creation. Even if God knew sin and war would inevitably errupt, that doesn't mean his purposes and desires, the way he wants to relate to creation, are war-like. First and foremost there is the sheer love and goodness of God in God's desires to create and his purposes for creation. Point is: even for Doc, there's a fundamental non-warfare love and goodness that's at the heart of the warfare worldview. This means that the warfare worldview doesn't claim that 'war' is inherent to the cosmos. It's a foreign element. Sin is falleness and brokeness. It's lack. So whatever warfare and struggle it introduces to creation, it's an invasion into an otherwise good and loving creation. The upshot is that the "primary" focus on loving interrelationality between persons that Mephi is looking for really IS there in the warfare worldview. It's a matter of perspective. I see this loving purpose as the heart of my worldview. That's where I start. But sin's infection is so widespread, so universal, and the consequent war so all-consuming that it gets its own headlines and eats up a lot of our attention and language. So I can see how one might think proponents of the warfare model are "into" war and violence.
Some points:
1) My issue is not dealing with God's purposes for creation. We would both agree that even Doc's warfare worldview is based on perfect love. My issue deals with God's responsive activity to Creation's fall. Instead of saying that God "goes to war" with fallen Creation...I would say that God STRIVES with Creation, seeking to liberate it from the sin it has fallen. THIS is the distinction, in my mind.
2) Your assessment about the idea of war being "so all-consuming that it gets its own headlines and eats up a lot of our attention and language" is EXACTLY why I think the new framework is so important. Exactly why.
*******************************
Tom:
So let's posit a real, personal, war of wills that has engulfed a creation that was not determined for such war but rather for love. How does that not do it? Is more than this really required?
If you don't think so, cool. I do, though. :grin:
**************************
Tom:
And there's nothing in the warfare worldview that necessarily objectifies people.
I just think that there is another perspective that, overall, LESSENS the opportunities of objectification within the language games of the view itself.
*****************************
Corey:
Meph: Deeply held, internalized beliefs have IMPACTS on how we behave. This is why we must be careful about what we believe.
Corey: And our beliefs are impacted by the Systems in which we operate, (as described in the Modes of Thought reading for tonight.) Whitehead seems to contend that systematizing entails closure, and this closure entails exclusion of matter-of-fact. I'm concerned that the system your using is closed to the possibility that there may be categories of beings that God decided to not love.
I'm trying to understand how a perfectly loving being who chose to EXPRESS the perfect love to everything in Creation...can, all of a sudden decide, to NOT love something.
******************************
Corey:
Meph: Whatever God relates to in Creation, in whatever context, God relates to it in a perfectly loving way.
Corey: Agreed. But couldn't it be that the most loving way for God to relate to Satan is to seek his destruction? If there is nothing reconcilable about him, then it would seem that the most loving thing would be to put him out of his (and our) misery.
Seeking destruction isn't the point. Remember that we said that this may WELL be the case, if universalism isn't true. The issue becomes this: How is perfect love EXPRESSED in the context where "the most loving thing would be to put him out of his (and our) misery"? I've said that it is genuine MOURNING. As that person so aptly put it, the "infinite sorrow of God"
When I am told that an EXISTING SENTIENT BEING is not loved by the God who IS perfect love and EXPRESSES Godself to Creation as perfect love...a big "does not compute" comes up in my mind.
**************************
Selah:
IF we could clearly and concretely install the belief that satan and powers and principalities that align themselves fully with him are evil...(and outside of that we don't know who is solidified evil or demons walking around), then I really believe we can live in loving relationship with every flesh and blood person on the planet. Now, once someone ACTUALLY does freakishly evil things (things that look more like they belong to their "father, the devil" , I think we are permitted to wonder about (and rightly distance ourselves from) them. But we have a Source to go to for further information. We go to God for wisdom, discernment and TRUTH!
Ah...so you are saying that we should keep in mind that, yes, there may be fundamentally unlovable around, people that even God doesn't love...BUT...we will pray and God will let us know which ones are lovable and which ones are not?
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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah: IF we could clearly and concretely install the belief that satan and powers and principalities that align themselves fully with him are evil...(and outside of that we don't know who is solidified evil or demons walking around), then I really believe we can live in loving relationship with every flesh and blood person on the planet. Now, once someone ACTUALLY does freakishly evil things (things that look more like they belong to their "father, the devil"), I think we are permitted to wonder about (and rightly distance ourselves from) them. But we have a Source to go to for further information. We go to God for wisdom, discernment and TRUTH! Ah...so you are saying that we should keep in mind that, yes, there may be fundamentally unlovable around, people that even God doesn't love...BUT...we will pray and God will let us know which ones are lovable and which ones are not? Hmmm...
good catch Mephi. I meant to say "I really believe we can live in LOVING relationship with EVERY FLESH AND BLOOD person on the planet. And at the same time, know (hold as a belief) that there are unsafe people/evil people walking around that we're not called to befriend. Not befriending them can be loving. But, what I was trying to point out is taht because of our tendency to selectively perceive things, we have to go to God for wisdom in order to discern how to best love flesh and blood (including ourselves!).
This isn't the case with satan, however. We can and should install the belief that satan and his cohorts are God's enemies. And we can and (I think) should hate them/their actions and war against them with everything we can...
ok. enough from me.
Tom is the oracle of true theology anyway
love you guys,
T
Post Edited (selah) : 6/19/2006 12:15:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/19/2006 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: I would say that God STRIVES with Creation, seeking to liberate it from the sin it has fallen. THIS is the distinction, in my mind.
Tom: I don't find STRIVING all that different from WARRING. Remember, all meaning is analogical, so both 'to strive' and 'to war' are mere analogies that bring different aspects to our understanding. I think 'war' betters expresses some aspects of the relationship. And I don't see how any concerns one might have with such langauge aren't easily avoided.
------------------
Mephi: 2) Your assessment about the idea of war being "so all-consuming that it gets its own headlines and eats up a lot of our attention and language" is EXACTLY why I think the new framework is so important.
Tom: I don't think the "idea" of war is so all-consuming. I think the "war" itself, the actual opposition of wills, is so all-consuming and costly that "war" does a far better job (analogically) of expressing this reality than "struggle."
-----------------
Tom: And there's nothing in the warfare worldview that necessarily objectifies people.
Mephi: I just think that there is another perspective that, overall, LESSENS the opportunities of objectification within the language games of the view itself.
Tom: Perhaps, but it's a trade-off. If 'war' is more likely than 'struggle' to objectify, 'struggle' is also less likely to communicate the depth, scope, nature, and cost of the opposition God faces. If I have to in the end qualify "war" to keep from objectifying people, it seems to me you'll have to beef up "struggle" to emphasize the importance, cost, and desperate nature of the 'struggle' (since 'struggle' to my mind starts at the bottom end of the sorts of conflicts people think of, and we're definitely NOT at the bottom of the scale on this one).
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom is the male spokesperson/mouthpiece/representative of true theology...
who knows. my son's new thing is to see how many nights in a row we can stay up together and watch movies! We just completed night two. seen about 8 movies so far....and played a ton of video games and chess. This is what I get for trying to intentionally make memories :)
selah
satan=bad
God=good
Post Edited (selah) : 6/20/2006 7:13:15 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
I meant to say "I really believe we can live in LOVING relationship with EVERY FLESH AND BLOOD person on the planet. And at the same time, know (hold as a belief) that there are unsafe people/evil people walking around that we're not called to befriend. Not befriending them can be loving. But, what I was trying to point out is taht because of our tendency to selectively perceive things, we have to go to God for wisdom in order to discern how to best love flesh and blood (including ourselves!).
This isn't the case with satan, however. We can and should install the belief that satan and his cohorts are God's enemies. And we can and (I think) should hate them/their actions and war against them with everything we can.
I think that you are minimizing something important. The reason why we can "hate" Satan and his cohorts is BECAUSE they are (supposedly) totally solidified in their sin. This is why, it is said, that we shouldn't even waste energy MOURNING Satan and demons as lost people. THIS, Selah, is exactly the same logic that should be applied to sin-solidified human beings. We are not merely talking about choosing not to be around "unsafe people/evil people"...or not befriending them. We are talking about treating such people just as we treat Satan. Hating them. Making them effectively ONE with their sin. Let's not lower the bar here.
If I am to hate Satan on the grounds of character solidification unto being "one" with his sin, I cannot see how I am to NOT hate evil human beings on the same grounds. It seems to me that it really WOULD be possible for me to pray for someone evil and for God to say "Yo. That guy's a goner. Don't waste your time or emotional energy loving him." Then I could hate him...just like I hate Satan.
Just like we shouldn't waste time praying for or mourning Satan, there are certain people that we shouldn't pray for or mourn. And the wise God will give us the discernment to know who those people are.
YAAAY!  ***************************** Tom: And there's nothing in the warfare worldview that necessarily objectifies people.
Mephi: I just think that there is another perspective that, overall, LESSENS the opportunities of objectification within the language games of the view itself.
Tom: Perhaps, but it's a trade-off. If 'war' is more likely than 'struggle' to objectify, 'struggle' is also less likely to communicate the depth, scope, nature, and cost of the opposition God faces. If I have to in the end qualify "war" to keep from objectifying people, it seems to me you'll have to beef up "struggle" to emphasize the importance, cost, and desperate nature of the 'struggle' (since 'struggle' to my mind starts at the bottom end of the sorts of conflicts people think of, and we're definitely NOT at the bottom of the scale on this one).
1) Personally, I would rather deal with our tendencies towards not taking things seriously enough than to play into our tendency to objectify. Again, it wouldn't take much empirical validation to show the depth, scope, nature, and cost of the "struggle"
2) It's based on what one understands "struggle" to be. I guess I would go to the non-violent "struggles" of the Civil Rights Movement in America and that against British colonialism in India. Let's see people get more understanding of those movements...and NOT consider depth, scope, and cost!
***************************
Corey:
Corey: I'm really sympathetic to the intuition behind this. It's the same intuition that I hang my hat on when discussing omniscience... how can God NOT know something that is knowable. Likewise, how can God NOT love something that is lovable? It's his very nature to love, and he can't turn it off at will.
My only question is, is all creation lovable? Perhaps the nature of love is that it must be potentially reciprocal. I can't love a lamppost, for example. If Satan has lost the potential to reciprocally love, then perhaps God regards him as I regard a lamppost. Or maybe a thorn in my side or pebble in my shoe or fire burning down my home or an automaton robot ruler bent on the destruction of the ones I love. That's a better description of the picture I have of the nature of Satan and the relationship God has with him. I don't see that God would mourn the loss of his cool robot that went bad. This thing has caused me nothing but problems, and I'm glad to be rid of it. Kind of how I felt about my first car.
Hmmm...
I'm VERY rusty on Works of Love...and I've haven't read it all. Didn't SK say something about love being unidirectional. I'm thinking of SK talking about "The Work of Love in Remembering One Dead" or something like that. It seemed to me that an implication was that Love has the HOPE of reciprocity...but does not require it to be love. There is such a thing as unrequited love. In like manner, God's love would NOT be deterred by a being who chose not to love God back. The love would just not be reciprocated.
Actually, according to SK's line of thinking there, God's love for Satan would be the MOST altruistic act...BECAUSE of the inability of Satan to love God back, given Satan's spiritual "death." Remembering Satan via mourning would be one of the HIGHEST FORMS of love.
Heh...
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 1:09:12 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 6/19/2006 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Selah:
I meant to say "I really believe we can live in LOVING relationship with EVERY FLESH AND BLOOD person on the planet. And at the same time, know (hold as a belief) that there are unsafe people/evil people walking around that we're not called to befriend. Not befriending them can be loving. But, what I was trying to point out is taht because of our tendency to selectively perceive things, we have to go to God for wisdom in order to discern how to best love flesh and blood (including ourselves!).
This isn't the case with satan, however. We can and should install the belief that satan and his cohorts are God's enemies. And we can and (I think) should hate them/their actions and war against them with everything we can.
I think that you are minimizing something important. The reason why we can "hate" Satan and his cohorts is BECAUSE they are (supposedly) totally solidified in their sin. This is why, it is said, that we shouldn't even waste energy MOURNING Satan and demons as lost people. THIS, Selah, is exactly the same logic that should be applied to sin-solidified human beings. We are not merely talking about choosing not to be around "unsafe people/evil people"...or not befriending them. We are talking about treating such people just as we treat Satan. Hating them. Making them effectively ONE with their sin. Let's not lower the bar here.
If I am to hate Satan on the grounds of character solidification unto being "one" with his sin, I cannot see how I am to NOT hate evil human beings on the same grounds.
*****************************
Sorry If I'm not making sense here Mephi. What I'm trying to say is that we are given enough information in scripture about the solidified NATURE of Satan - we are not given this information about other individuals. Therefore, we can judge satan (the adversary/accuser of the brethern/ Liar etc) rightly - because of what we know. We can't know enough to judge others with the same/similar criteria because we don't have it.
can you hear me now?
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
Sorry If I'm not making sense here Mephi. What I'm trying to say is that we are given enough information in scripture about the solidified NATURE of Satan - we are not given this information about other individuals. Therefore, we can judge satan (the adversary/accuser of the brethern/ Liar etc) rightly - because of what we know. We can't know enough to judge others with the same/similar criteria because we don't have it.
can you hear me now?
I hear you fine. You are saying that since we don't know enough about the solidification state of human beings, we should DEFAULT to loving them...ever one we come across...because of "benefit of the doubt." Right?
My problem is simply this: In your schema, you must grant the genuine POSSIBILTY that an evil human being walking this earth that you know may be irrevocably solidified in evil...AND...that, upon prayer, God may tell you as much. You must also grant that IF this occured, you would feel well within your rights to consider that person a NON-person of solidified sin. This means that we should be, IN PRINCIPLE, open to the idea that God will tell us that someone is utterly unlovable and not worthy of our hope and working for redemption.
It is this possibility that I have issues with.
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I think that love here requires God as the Middle Term. Love may or may not be returned to us, but we're still satisfied because God returns the love to us.
Read it up and tell me what's up. My initial thought is this: If this is the case, nothing's changed. Because of God's ad intra loving sociality AND God's loving sustance of all Creation, God is STILL the middle term. With God loving any spiritually "dead" sentient being who CANNOT reciprocate love back to God, love is still satisfied because God returns the love to Godself. The "hell-bound" being still exists in God's love...and love is indeed satisfied.
Regardless, it would still be the case that God's loving the spiritual dead person would be seen as the most altruistic.
Right?
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 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
You just want me to skip the gym today don'tcha mephi? :p
Ok. I'm not sure I agree with the way you reworded/tried to make sense of what I've been saying, but I will say this - IF God told me (via prayer or whatever) that a specific person was beyond hope. I would believe God. If God told me to avoid that person, wipe the dust from my shoes and move on. I would do so. If God told me to never have another thought about that person (grieve for them etc) I would shift my thoughts to questioning God about why... and why not, perhaps, but I would still listen to God.
I don't care about being "well within my rights" to do anything. I do care about what God says through scripture and personally. I guess I AM open to the idea that God could tell me to end loving a person or to treat them as a NON-person (whatever), but since he has never done so and it would be pretty far outside his character to do so. I doubt that's gonna happen. If it did, God and I would talk A LOT.
okey dokey | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 6/19/2006 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Eph 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
The above is "insider" language, addressed specifically to Christians (insiders) and not necessarily meant as "evangelistic" speech to outsiders. Further, it is clear that our battle is not against other human beings at all, as evil as they may become (like Hitler became, for instance), but is instead specifically stated as being against evil spirits. We proclaim "the gospel of peace" to our fellow man, which in a very real way destroys/undoes Satan's kingdom. We hold up the shield of faith (not a literal physical shield but a spiritual one), so that we may be protected from the attacks of the Enemy, Satan, which we already know are being hurled in our direction because of Whose we are.
I think even the most devout pacifist Christian would have no problem with the warfare motif when understood properly.
about God loving Satan, if we take this as a necessary consequence of God's benevolence towards all, we can perhaps understand that in limiting Satan's ability and in ultimately imprisoning him in Hell, God is simply doing the BEST that can be done for an absolutely evil person such as Satan. To allow him to continue his murderous, deceptive, destructive ways forever would do NO ONE any good at all (least of all would it do Satan any good).
In battling against and ultimately defeating and imprisoning Satan, God is acting in supreme benevolence towards ALL, (the highest good of all, not just "the greater good" ), just as acting to defeat Hitler, the Allied Forces were acting in the best interest of mankind, not simply for self-serving reasons. In doing so, putting a final stop to Hitler's maniacal campaign was even in Hitler's best interests (i.e., the highest good of all).
Blessings,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/19/2006 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Ok, I just re-read that section in WoL. Actually, I didn't have much time and moved pretty fast, so I may need to do it again. But I was surprised that I didn't see any language about God as the Middle Term in this section.
His main point here seems to be that how we relate to a loved one who has died is a criteria for revealing if we really love them or not.
I need to find the section on God as the Middle Term.
Hmm...
I hear ya. Maybe we can talk about this later. I just had a conversation with Modes about some of this stuff. Particularly about that section of WoL. This is what I've gathered from his perspective:
1) Part of the point is to point out, with radicality, the IDEAL of love...using "death as a dancing partner" or something like that.
2) It does cash out to mean that Love IS unidirectional with the hope of reciprocation. Modes said that love does NOT require the possibility of reciprocation from the beloved to be considered love.
3) It doesn't make sense to say that a sentient being is not loved by God. If God IS love, then there is no such thing as saying that there exists a being fundamentally UNLOVED by God.
Personally, I would put this thought more intensely. It's like the old idea: What happens when an irresistable force meets and immovable object? The question is nonsensical because if there IS an irresistable force, ipso facto, there cannot be an immovable object...and vice versa. In like manner, if the God (Creator and Perpetual Sustainer of All Things) IS love, then there cannot exist any fundamentally unloved OR UNLOVABLE sentient creature.
We can talk about it more tonight.
PS: Please note that even IF we take the idea of "God as Middle Term" with respect to God's love for a single sentient creature, things still end up such that God loves EACH sentient beings, regardless of their ability or inability to love God back.
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 3:39:23 PM (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 1:56 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 |
|
|