 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/19/2005 4:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Most of us here agree that any valid moral guideline in or outside of the Bible is simply the practical application of the command to love. So, ideally, all we need to know is what love is and what the elements of a given situation are, and then we can say what is a good or bad action in that situation.
Hopefully, I've dodged the question of hermeneutics and biblical authority, and posited a starting place that most of us can agree upon. So, how do we define love? Is the loving thing that which enables another to have happiness? I looked it up on dictionary.com and all the definitions either were circular (giving synonyms instead of definitions) or had to do with sex. The enabling another to have happiness seems to me to be the safest definition I can come up with. Is that good enough?
After we define love do we just apply it in a utilitarian manner? Is the ethical or good thing always to maximize love? Or are there boundaries outside of which one need not concern oneself with loving?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/19/2005 8:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, change it to love = that which promotes the highest good.
So, what's good? Is there some defintion of "good" that does not devolve into a list? Is there a way to define the principal of good?
Jeff, I'm fine with agreeing that love recognizes that living righteously is the only way one's highest good can be attained. But are you also saying that a loving person only does that which allows for the highest good? If so, what do we mean by good?
Finally, in response to the drug addict thing: you've assumed that giving drugs to an addict is wrong. Maybe you're right about that. But Jesus encouraged his followers to give the violent a face to slap, deadbeats suckers to borrow from, and oppressors people to exploit. The question of whether it is good to give to the wicked is still very much up in the air for me.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 10/19/2005 8:27:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/19/2005 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: Jeff, I'm fine with agreeing that love recognizes that living righteously is the only way one's highest good can be attained. But are you also saying that a loving person only does that which allows for the highest good? If so, what do we mean by good?
Jeff: I don't really know to articulate it in a concise way. Maybe that's why Paul had to say what love DOES as opposed to what it IS. And even then, the list is not real concise.
But the reason why I tend to think that GOODNESS is fundamental to the notion is because God created VERY GOOD, originally. And it seems like we are to live in that manner, which, if EVERYBODY lived it, the world would be as good as it could possibly be (apart from divine intervention to stop natural evil, etc). Meaning all would experience the greatest degree of happiness, blessedness, harmony of being, or whatever we want to call it, that they are capable of.
Certainly that goodness that is correlative with love would be the good as related to the WHOLENESS of the person--both in range of sentience and time. There are short range goods that compromise long range goods. And there are lower goods which, if we become obsessed with them, can compromise HIGHER good. That's what I think John was getting at. BTW, glad to see you posting again! :-)
Zach: The question of whether it is good to give to the wicked is still very much up in the air for me.
Jeff: I've given this question some more thought since we discussed it last. If you look at Matthew's account of the sermon, it is broke down into headings like "you have heard it said, but I say..." The verse in question fell under "but I say do not RESIST evil." Might Christ have been saying do NOT withhold giving or borrowing as a form of petty retaliation simply BECAUSE someone has done evil to you?
If so, we don't have the difficulty of accounting for the verses where God is said to give IF requests are made in faith and/or according to His will. This would allow the Lord's prayer request that "Thy will be done on earth, as in heaven," to qualify God's answering of requests in a coherent way with the other verses. That's not to say that God couldn't answer requests solely for His own providential reasons. But that He is not automatically going to answer all requests, like Matthew (later) and John imply, and James says explicitly.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/19/2005 8:57:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/19/2005 10:07 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Last things first...
I've read it in English and Greek, but I can't see the "because." What makes the teaching so striking is the fact that it "goes the extra mile." It's not just "Don't act out of hate." It's also "Act sacrificially out of love." I think Christ would agree that we are not to withhold money out for bad reasons. But I don't see him leaving room for any good reasons either. To me it sounds like you are interpreting the passage to be saying "Don't be bad," but I don't think we can neglect the instruction to be dangerously good as well. Striking someone is bad. But making that striking easier is good. Defaulting on a loan is bad, but allowing the default is good. Oppressing the weak is bad, but facilitating further oppression is good. The way I see it, the first, bad action is bad because it is coersive. The second, good action is good because it is sacrificial. That it paves the way for more sin on the other's part does not effect the goodness of the Christian's action.
Now, I know this doesn't fit with the rest of the New Testament. Maybe this stuff is right and the other parts are wrong. Maybe those other parts are right and this stuff is wrong. I don't know. But as written they are irreconcilable. To make things fit we must change one or the other. You've chosen to add something to this stuff. I'm ok with that. I just think we should admit that in doing so, we (maybe with the Holy Spirit's guidance) have made ourselves the authority (canon) by which the Bible is judged. Most people persist in believing that it is the Bible that is a standard for us. That the Bible cannot be a standard (canon) is demonstrated by the fact that we must change it to make it internally consistent.
Back to the point...
I don't mean any rudeness by this, but it seems like all we are doing is renaming. We can relabel "love" as "goodness." But that doesn't get to what it is. I'd really like to believe that love or good had some meaning. The idea of love/good being a collection of otherwise disconnected principals is very unappealling. What if anything joins good actions together? What do all loving/good actions have in common? Anything?
I know this all may sound condescending, but I don't mean it that way. I still like happiness. To me it defines rather than relabels. Happiness in this context would be the fulfillment of whatever subjective desire one might have. Would you guys go for love = that which will allow for the most ultimate happiness?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/20/2005 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | My take. I realize the terms would need explaining...but I'm just laying it out here...
Love is when a person A acknowledges another person B’s unique existence, and on that basis,
1) attributes positive aesthetic appreciation to person B’s individual, unique existence,
2) has some form of personal relationality with person B and,
3) seeks, whenever possible, to empower the other person B to have the ability to become more of a person before God and him/herself in such a way that the empowered person B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering person A.
and…
4) seeks to, whenever possible, enhance the intensity of beautiful experience for person B.
This conception of love can be instantiated in the God/God, God/world, and world/world arenas. This also holds the Kierkegaardian conviction that God is always the "middle term" in any earthly loving relationships. In my view, any Christian trinitarian worldview's concept of love HAS to be able to do this.
********************
Sahid:
After we define love do we just apply it in a utilitarian manner? Is the ethical or good thing always to maximize love? Or are there boundaries outside of which one need not concern oneself with loving?
Again, my personal thoughts. Love and ethics are not of the same stock. Though they converge in certain ways, they are not on the same continuum. Consider Bonhoeffer's plight with the Hitler assassination attempt or SK's "teleological suspension of the ethical."
My 2cPost Edited (MephEternal) : 10/20/2005 1:20:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/20/2005 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | MrIndifference said...
In the OT, the Hebrews had the law, but were unable to live up to it. Because of sin, the only thing that could enable them to fulfull the law was witheld from them, the Holy Spirit..
Not to hijack this thread, but I must say I completely disagree with this statement. God, through Moses, plainly said that the Law was NOT too hard to keep (Deut. 30:11-20) if only they would trust Him. Similarly, in the NT, the law of love is NOT to hard to keep for those who walk in faith and in the Spirit.
I also disagree that the Holy Spirit was withheld from them. The entire "God gives a law that's impossible to keep" really blasphemes God, and makes him out to be a tyrannical OGRE, commanding man, on pain of eternal death, to do that which He knows full well they cannot do (obey Him from a heart motive of love).
The Two Greatest Commands (The Moral Law) has always been what God expects of mankind. The application of this principle has varied, but the core of it has always been the same--Loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself.
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/20/2005 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Also, the application of "What is the highest good?" requires us to consult the plain testimony of the scriptures as well as our God-given reasoning faculties, and, perhaps most importantly of all, the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
To love is to value appropriately, each according to their value relative to the highest good of all. This makes Christ's self-sacrifice understandable. "Happiness" is an emotional, "happenstance" "luck" sort of thing, that is by definition SELFISH for the recipient to desire.
That is why I don't think it is appropriate to say the happiness of another should be our goal. I realize from your previous posts here, Sahid, that you are basically an anarchist (as far as I can tell), so I can really see why this issue of "What is love?" would be a difficulty (indeed, an impossibility) for you to define. It is what it is.
It is sometimes the highest good of ALL to sacrifice the one (Christ) for the highest good of all. It is the highest good of all, for instance, for a police officer (whose motives are benevolent) to stop a criminal from continuing in his criminal activities. Of course, I would think Sahid would probably be in favor of physician-assisted suicide, from what I gather of his previous posts.
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/20/2005 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
To love is to value appropriately, each according to their value relative to the highest good of all.
1) How is this fundamentally or pragmatically any different from rule or act utilitarianism?
2) Doesn't this idea of love have the SAME PROBLEMS as both forms of utilitarianism?
3) How is "virtue" involved in your concept of love?
Virtue Ethics
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
www.iep.utm.edu/v/virtue.htm#H5 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/20/2005 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Perhaps an example would be helpful. Actually it will probably just muddy the waters, but here goes. What do you do if a man with alcohol on his breath asks you angrily for some money? What is love/good here? Ignoring any complicating variables.
Based on Mr. I's post, I gather that he would not give because it does not empower the man to be who he should be.
Based on parts 3 and 4 of Meph's definition, I gather that he would say, "Be kind to the man, but don't give him what he asks."
John talked about loving "as thyself," but also seems to consider selfishness distinct from love. I can't see how this makes sense. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if selfishness is forbidden? Are we assuming a standard of good before we define good? I would add to my understanding of happiness the truth that pursuing happiness at the expense of others (selfish love which denies love for others) is self-defeating and counterproductive.
Jesus said, "Do not resist a wicked man" and "If a man asks for your shirt, give him your coat too."
As to anarchy... Yeah, you can call me an anarchist. But technically I'm not one. I believe that Jesus is (the rightful) Lord. An anarchist would believe that there is no rightful lord. (A statist might say that Jesus is Lord, but he would act as though the king or party or majority is lord.)
It was said, "It is the highest good of all, for instance, for a police officer (whose motives are benevolent) to stop a criminal from continuing in his criminal activities." This is the problem. This definition of "highest good" is arbitrary. There is no why. My question is "Why is it the highest good for a police officer to stop a criminal? What is the principal of good that this officer is conforming to?"
Finally, I don't know how this applies, but I am not in favor of physican assisted suicide. However, I am not in favor of preventing it by coersion either. I'd rather not be the sinner or the Pharisee. (Not the best metaphor, but you know what I mean.)
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 10/20/2005 2:19:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/20/2005 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said: Perhaps an example would be helpful. Actually it will probably just muddy the waters, but here goes. What do you do if a man with alcohol on his breath asks you angrily for some money? What is love/good here? Ignoring any complicating variables.
John replies: It would be not in the alcoholic's best interest to assist his alcoholism by giving him money. It would be in his best interest to try to help him to get free of his addiction (Perhaps through an organization such as the Salvation Army, Teen Challenge, or even AA. I say this being a former alcholic myself, who was helped to get free of my addiction through the compassionate ministry of Teen Challenge and those compassionate Christians who helped me see my need to get free and helped me STAY free).
Sahid said: John talked about loving "as thyself," but also seems to consider selfishness distinct from love.
John replies: Actually, I consider selfishness to be THE OPPOSITE of love (benevolence). It is to love one's neighbors equitably, and God supremely. To say we ought to love them equitably is to imply that we must in all cases consider the highest good of ALL, with God and God's will/interest at the center in all cases. This requires, for instance, that we each provide for our own household (as God commanded through Paul the Apostle) first and foremost when relating to others in general. My responsibility to act in the highest good/best interest of (which is to love) my wife and children means that I do not have the responsibility to take ultimate care of the children of others who are able-bodied, though of course I am to seek to bless and not harm others' children, either, and to help to the extent that I am able, without harming my own family.
How this is not selfishness is simple - It is NOT in the highest good of anyone for anyone else to just sponge off others, be a bum and basically be an unproductive burden on society, and it IS in the highest good of all for all who CAN work to do so, then it follows that each should take care of his own household/family first, if at all possible. Extenuating circumstances such as social displacement due to natural disasters, loss of employment, etc., would obviously alter precisely how this all works out in practice (for I certainly do believe we always ought to help those who are truly in need if we can, and my overall view of benevolence is precisely that), but the SPIRIT of the law of benevolence remains the same--loving God supremely and one's neighbor equitably. I affirm the social ethic of the 19th century Holiness movement; that is, that the church should endeavor to help reform society towards a more righteous reflection of the Kingdom of God. The Temperance Movement, the Abolitionist Movement, Women's Suffrage, etc., all were strongly supported (and in many cases begun) by the 19th Century Holiness Movement.
Sahid said: It was said, "It is the highest good of all, for instance, for a police officer (whose motives are benevolent) to stop a criminal from continuing in his criminal activities." This is the problem. This definition of "highest good" is arbitrary. There is no why. My question is "Why is it the highest good for a police officer to stop a criminal? What is the principal of good that this officer is conforming to?"
John replies: It is the highest good for a police officer to stop a criminal, because anarchy/chaos would not be in ANYONE'S best interest (highest good).
And I say to myself...what a wonderful world...
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 10/20/2005 3:52:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/20/2005 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Exactamundo. If God is indeed love, then there's no way for human beings to engage in love without God as a referrent in some form. Hence, part of my depiction of loving action include empowering a person to become more of themselves before God, which assumes that God is the COMMON DENOMINATOR of the relationship, because BOTH PARTIES are before God...and becoming more of oneself before God involves losing despair (SK term) by coming to "rest transparently in the Power that created them" (SK's language)
I'd have to say that love is something that can, in fact, be isolated from DIRECT grounding in God. Sinners love each other all the time. Yes, the capacity to love does come from God, but there is no less in the essence of what love is when sinners love each other than there is when believers love each other. Believers simply understand why it is they love and who enables love.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Merton
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 10/20/2005 11:30 PM (GMT -6) | | I feel there seem to be some things missing from this discussion. Sahid has asked over and again for something definitive to say about love. I have read that those who are not Jesus followers and most who claim to be Jesus followers do not love in truth, because they are limited by selfish impulses. That may be true, but only partially true (all motives of all people are corrupted by our fallen world view, even those true in Jesus). I have read that love is seeking the highest good for others, or seeking to empower them to be better. While all those may be true (or not, maybe I am just not that bright) it seems to fail to sufficiently answer the desired request for an answer to a positive definition of what love is and looks like.
One of the problems that reoccur in this discussion is that scripture (record of the living Word of God) and different philosophies are being utilized as static things.
Sahid, to begin to answer your question (only beginning, for it is far too difficult to answer in full) we begin with the quote you used: "Do not resist a wicked man" and "If a man asks for your shirt, give him your coat too." We qualify and denigrate this statement when we begin to use the "Yes, but..." statements. From the "Protestant plain text reading" of the text we are to give to any who ask, love those that persecute, etc. We are to give, not qualify.
To move beyond the idea of a single "proof text," let us look at the total life of Jesus. Was he not betrayed, and yet loved? Was he not crucified and yet asked for his crucifiers’ forgiveness? Did he not, while we were sinners lay down his life for us? We say things like that don't we?
Perdition was brought down on those who crucified Jesus. Yes, Yes you could say that they chose that perdition. And you are right they did. But with the pragmatic understanding that has been running through the discussion, the train of thought has to admit, that the crucifixion was not in the long run the best possible thing for those who crucified them. I don't know what would have been (again I may be stupid), but their eternal (or not eternal) damnation seems not to be the best result.
Now, Sahid, to answer the definition of what love is the full example of Jesus' life, and not merely a proof text or two is needed. That example, Jesus, is the prototokos, the icon of the divine love (Agape as has been stated) is self giving/sacrificing. Agape is not simply divine love, but self-sacrificing love. If Jesus is our icon of the Triune God, that is God turned towards us, then we have to understand Jesus’ love as that love that we participate in via, and only via, the Spirit which causes us to give of ourselves sacrificially. Agape causes us to do what Jesus insisted love the enemy, the other, the hated, and to give self-sacrificially without regard to self. Agape drove the martyr’s to love first and foremost their Messiah, and by doing so were driven to offer up their lives, with thought only for their Messiah.
A final point about the use of this self-sacrificing love must be made. With regard to the question of giving money to a person, who may or may not be an alcoholic, the answer is drinking or not drinking is the asking person’s choice. Open theism says that life is truly about choices, right? That for God to be the God of the Christian scriptures, Father-Son-Spirit, chose to limit the use of the divine power (look there is that divine self-giving agape again), and so ultimately it is the responsibility of the free creature for the evil they do (say accepting of rejecting Christ, or choosing to drink or not to drink). If God in God's self-sacrificing love has chosen to limit the Godhead, so as to allow human freedom of choice, shouldn't that be our image of love, the way we act towards the woman/man who asks for money simply to buy alcohol? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/21/2005 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Merton: We are to give, not qualify.
Jeff: I've never met one person who doesn't qualify it SOMEHOW. And, unless you're willing to takes Zach's approach with other scriptures, so does God. But I would not say that we shouldn't give to a drunk. I would only say we shouldn't give him CASH if he EXPLICITLY asks for cash to buy more alcohol for himself. Otherwise, giving to a drunk can be the right thing to do. It is only when we KNOWINGLY FACILITATE the furtherance of evil or diminish the optimal good by giving, that giving is forbidden, IMO.
Love seeks not it's own and suffers long. I take that to mean that love is willing to suffer SIGNIFICANTLY for the BENEFIT of others. But BENEFIT is the key word. Giving that doesn't benefit is mere legalism, isn't it?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/21/2005 4:29:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/21/2005 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Merton, I've got no time now, but I really appreciated that. It is basically how I see it. But two things... One, agape isn't "divine love" in the Bible. At least that's my understanding. It seems that the distinction between agape, philos, and eros has been overdone some. But if you are using apage as your word for special, divine, sacrifical love, then that's cool. I get it. Second, if we look at the whole life of Jesus, what about that specific places in the Bible that doesn't seem to fit with his life? I can't list places now. Maybe later.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:01 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 |
|
|