 |
| 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2004 3:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | Romans 13:3-4
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!
Mephi, I don't get what is problematic about these verses. Obviously God is saying HEY, DO GOOD LIKE ME, NOT BAD LIKE NOT ME. OK (then he throws in an "or else" kinda thing. Still, God is good...bad is not good...God is not bad.
I don't know. Where's ICON, DOC,TOM when you need em? Pick on someone your own size mephi   (kidding)
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
 |
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
[quote]While your thinking, ponder this.
Okey dokey. I'll ponder just a bit out loud and see if you can help me.
Now, here's what I see:they met a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, named Bar-jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God.
So that's the set up. Then there's some trouble:
[quote]But the magician Elymas (for that is the translation of his name) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now *BECAUSE YOU ARE EVIL* listen—the hand of the Lord is against you, and you will be blind for a while, unable to see the sun.” Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he went about groping for someone to lead him by the hand.
again, what is problematic? It's like Paul said - "get behind me pal of satan, you are not good, God is Good, and you are clearly against GOOD...so go blind or something *for a while* I've gotta go do some GOD STUFF right now. Thanks and I'll talk to you later."
Good vs evil .....warfare.
Now about the fig tree, I don't know. I kill plants all the time.
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/3/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephiquote:
God, in his infinite intelligence, KNEW the inevitability and ramifications of sin's entrance into existence that would accompany a free-will Creation. God, in his omnibenevolence, was willing to PAY THE PRICE and deal with that in order to have sentient loving creations. In other words, the desire for loving relationships with non-God beings GROUNDS God's willingness to "get dirty" in involvment with a fallen Creation. And this makes the ChristWork all the more important to us as one of the modes of HOW God paid this price.
Mephi, you said it right when you said God gets dirty in order to be involved with the fallen world. I see it like this: God is the firefighter going into the burning house to rescue the little boy. God is the surgeon up to his elbows in blood in order to save the hemorrhaging mother. God is involved with rescuing and healing his fallen creation. God gets dirty in the way the above people would in those circumstances but that doesn't mean God was complicit in the event. God is INVOLVED with US but not COMPLICIT with EVIL.
Mephiquote:
I'm getting the impression that you see God using fallen, evil structures or situations for "greater good" redemptive purposes as God pushing someone into the sewage. Is that your representation?
Mephi, personally I'd like to chime in. In the above statement I get the impression from you and the others that you guys hold to God being complicit with evil. What I believe you to be saying is that God picks which scenario he wants played out. Due to the fact that you all know God to be loving you guys are positing that God, out of his infinite wisdom and love, always picks the lesser of the two evils. I still don't see how this is NOT predestination?
I, on the other hand, don't view God that way. I view life as something that happens with both the good and evil. Sometimes people make evil choices (which breaks God's heart) and due to their choices other innocent people get hurt. God did not want this evil to befall his beloved. God is involved with his beloved working for the good. God knocks and knocks and knocks at the hearts door and is knocked off his socks when his beloved opens the door. At the same time Satan is working within situations and planting seeds in people's minds to cause them to stumble. Satan is the roaring lion looking for whom he may devour. As far as evil -- it happens not because of God but despite God's will. This world is Satan's for now -- he has a stronghold here and lures people into his traps. God is fighting against this at all times but needs our cooperation. I believe without God's love for us we all would be devoured before we could even exist. I believe sometimes when people have hardened hearts God allows the evil consequences of those hearts to reap the harvest i.e. the leprosy. God didn't start it but also didn't prevent it due to the person's hardened heart.
We all agree that God HATES evil. We all agree that God LOVES us even though we are infected with the evil virus. Perhaps we have to accept that we view the warfare in the world a bit differently. I say whatever works and draws you into understanding God's love is great.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/3/2004 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephiquote:
Ok. Could you give me your understanding of what defines moral culpability? What makes someone morally responsible for participating in an evil system?
Here's the thing, I DO NOT see God participating with an evil system. I see God working through the evil events in the world on behalf of his beloved. God is NOT orchestrating nor causing the evil. Evil happens. More evil would happen if we were not praying and following in accord with God's will. God's will for us is to have life and have it abundantly. Satan's plan is to devour us like a roaring lion.
Jesus taught us how to pray in this warfare, "Our Father, you are in heaven. Praise to your name. YOUR kingdom come, YOUR will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive those who do wrong to us. DELIVER us from evil and LEAD us NOT into temptation. For yours is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever and ever." Jesus taught us that prayer because of the warfare going on and the ever present need to be in prayer. We are to pray at all times. Evil is lurking and preying on victims. Satan leads us by tempting us into sin. We are to pray against this temptation and pray to be sheltered from evil.
To answer your question, Mephi, God is NOT morally responsible for evil just as a firefighter is not responsible for the fire. I don't personally understand how you can say God is complicit with evil and at the same time say God is complete love? This probably will never make sense to me. This seems foreign but hey, if this is how you are able to grasp God's love and draw closer than have at it! I personally draw closer by feeling like I am the apple of his eye. I draw closer by resting in his arms knowing that he is my deliverer and protector. I draw closer by knowing that all those special eye contacts he had with people in the movie were all the ways he would look at me. I draw closer by hearing him tell me how valuable and loved I am. I would not be able to do that if I thought that God was complicit in the evil events.
Thank you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Electra
Brandon:
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
I want to discuss the complicity here more. But I think I'm seeing something here...but I need some info to be sure. What I'm going to do is post a proposal axiom about moral culpability.
A person is morally culpable for participation in some activity IF and ONLY IF two parameters are met...
1) The person has the genuine ability to gain sufficient AWARENESS or COGNIZANCE of the context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that person more or less has "counted the cost." Wrote down all the figures. Tallied them up. And said, "OK, this is what I have to work with and so, I will make this move" or "I will NOT make this move."
Nope. Not quite. This merely means that a person has the GENUINE ABILITY to gain this information. What you are talking about is when a person not only aquires this information but actively "counts the costs" all the way. That's cool, but it's going beyond what I'm saying…even though it would be included in my statement.
Here's the thing. Ignorance CAN be chosen. Some people can, subtlely, REFUSE to see the truth even when they have adequate experiences and information on hand to know the truth. And they need to be held accountable for this. I believe Romans 1 testify to this type of thinking.
Romans 1:18-22
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
This has to be accounted for…and it's very important we do. Otherwise, ignorance truly IS bliss…whether or not one actively or passively refuses to see truth. This is why culpability only require GENUINE ABILITY to understand the context and ramifications.
***********************************************
Brandon (emphasis mine):
quote:
2) It is genuinely within their power to do (or to HAVE DONE) otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at it from the opposite side, that is to say, that if they DIDN'T have the power to do otherwise (yet knew the ramifications) they would not be at fault or culpable for something immoral because they could NOT help it. Working within the framework that love requires freedom and indeterminacy and free will co-exist, it would seem that there may be times that it is NOT genuinely within God's power to have done otherwise.
You are on point, as far as the principle. This is part of the ground of the whole "love requires freedom" idea. But I'm having issue with your application to God. The genuine power to do otherwise lies on various levels. In the largest sense, to the extent that one believes that Creation is a TOTALLY FREE event, a choice God could have NOT actualized, then that one has to say that this WHOLE THING could have been otherwise.
In other words, the FREE choice to actualize a state of affairs KNOWING that you will be participating in an evil system if you do is one for which a person would be culpable. This is because the person could have just "opted out" and NOT made that choice. With respect to God, God could have just chosen NOT to create.
See what I'm saying?
***************
Brandon:
quote:
If these two paramaters are NOT met, then a moral culpability is not possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, say that a person has counted the cost factoring in ALL the variables (context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation) it may be that they HAVE the power to do something but THEY DON'T because it would not be worth it. Therefore, they would not be held culpable of any immoral activity.
Again, some issues. With respect to participation, if someone knows all the variables involved with a free choice (including that "evil" is involved) and makes that choice to participate when they are ACTUALLY able not to participate, then they are culpable.
They would only not be culpable if they were NOT FREE to participate or not participate.
****************************
Ok. Here's the idea.
With respect to participation in an evil system, moral culpability would occur if 1) sufficient access to perceive the variables of participation was available and 2) genuine ability to do other than participate was the case.
Now, let's apply this.
God.
If we assume that God is INFINITELY INTELLIGENT, as part of God's omniscience, what this means is that God knew all variables concerning Creation. These variables INCLUDE the statistical inevitability and ramifications of sin's emergence and permeation of Creation…and knowledge of the way that God wanted to interact with the world (ie. Incarnation, etc) which would put God in significant contact and interaction with evil systems. So, #1 is met.
If we assume that Creation truly is a FREE EVENT meaning that God truly could have chosen NOT to create, then it would seem that #2 is met. Bottom line…if God didn't want evil (and God's interaction with evil) to exist, God had a sure fire way of making sure that it wouldn't.
Therefore, God would, at least, be morally culpable for the DECISION TO CREATE, which would lead to participation in evil systems.
Now, bring here all the stuff I said about Numbers 12. God USING aspects of the fallen Creation (Leprosy) in order to give a lesson to Miriam and Aaron. This is clear participation in the product of an evil system that God didn't want, but clearly anticipated, given infinite intelligence And I think that we will ALL grant that God was INDEED free to refrain from giving Miriam leprosy.
Therefore, God would be morally culpable for his PARTICIPATION in the evil system of sickness.
We have two clear cases where God is "complicit" with evil systems via God's participation.
I'm hoping all of this is quite clear.
Now this is where I have to thank Iconoclast. His "3 year old in racism" thing got me thinking about this whole thing. It got me to thinking that not only PARTICIPATION is a factor in culpability but some sense of available AWARENESS. When we think about babies , they can't have this. Babies don't have access to the ubiquitous understanding of fairness. There is no context to even provide babies with this type of awareness. So, that being the case, HOW could babies be "complicit"? They couldn't. Moreover, that are completely unable to do anything about where they were born…and they are completely unable to LEAVE where they were born. So, that criterion is not met. Now, can they participate in evil systems, in effect given the evil systems more power? Sure. Babies CAN exacerbate the problem just by being the focus of OTHER PEOPLE perpertuation of the evil structures. But they can't be held morally culpable for that.
But…
When we talk about MOST of us, even kids. We DO have access to basic understanding justice and fairness. Some would say that we have a core understanding of these things. We also DO have access to finding out about injustices and systemic forms of evil. We may have to SEEK THEM OUT, but nonetheless we do have access. (And access wouldn't be THAT dang hard…if we listened to people's testimonies about these things!) I would say that the vast majority of the time, our ignorance on these matters is chosen, either consciously or subconsciously. Repressing the truth, as Romans would say.
And here's a thought with the genuine ability to do otherwise. It it genuinely possible for MOST people to completely "opt out" of the American racialized, gender-biased system. Either by LEAVING this country (by whatever means) or by so ISOLATING themselves from American culture that, in their sphere of existence, no vestiges of American culture seeps in. We have to admit that if someone were REALLY INTENT on NOT being "complicit" in any way in this American racialized, gender-biased society, they could do these things.
It works out like this:
Even though it could be possible for White males to stay in America and cut off ALL access for American reality such that neither of the requirements for moral culpability in systemic evil, it's a VERY, VERY HIGH improbability! I seriously doubt that many White males would expend THAT much effort to completely extract themselves from American culture. But in staying, and receiving the unearned privileges that they do, they are PARTICIPATING in the evil structures in this country.
********************
The moral of the story:
I think that the radical sense of individualism with respect to moral culpability in sinful, evil structures appears to be misplaced based on an INADEQUATE understanding of tenets 1 and 2. With regard to #1, it has often been taken that ignorance IN AND OF ITSELF exonerates. But it doesn't. Self-allowed and self-promoted ignorance has moral ramificaitons. With regard to #2, it has been taken that if one can't do otherwise then they can't be held responsible. But, could it be the case that VERY LITTLE was thought about what it meant to be "able to do otherwise?" Could it be that people have so lowered the bar of what one can do that we actually fall into a victim mentality of sorts where we parceive our "ability to do otherwise" as being FAR MORE RESTRICTIVE than it really is? I think so.
So…
One can hold to a solid idea of moral culpability that is inextricably linked to freedom and choice…WHILE affirming the culpability that one has in participation with systemic evil.
Thoughts?
PS: Thanks for Iconoclast and all for helping me hone my thoughts on this.
Dang girl! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
I was thinking about your signature, and maybe what I’m saying about complicity is what makes love in action such a “harsh and dreadful thing.” In ethics the line between good and evil is very clear and goodness is all about staying on the right side of the line. But love risks crossing the line—and therefore taking on guilt—in order to reach the neighbor. God crossed this line in a big way in the incarnation (“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” 2 Cor. 5:21). And God crosses it every time God works to bring whatever good can be brought out of fallen contexts—every time God sits at the table with sinners.
Here’s a little different spin on the whole person/purpose distinction I made earlier. The unsurpassable worth and love God has for every individual person was demonstrated on the cross. This worth is absolute and unchanging. The purposes God has for each person are relative to the good of the whole. If we have truly internalized the depth of God’s love for each one of us, how could we balk at whatever purposes God has for us beyond that, even if they include suffering for the sake of lessening the evil others may face?
Finally, I’m through with . Please note my new signature smiley face below.
Peace,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by MephEternal
I want to discuss the complicity here more. But I think I'm seeing something here...but I need some info to be sure. What I'm going to do is post a proposal axiom about moral culpability.
A person is morally culpable for participation in some activity IF and ONLY IF two parameters are met...
1) The person has the genuine ability to gain sufficient AWARENESS or COGNIZANCE of the context, impacts, and ramifications of their participation
2) It is genuinely within their power to do (or to HAVE DONE) otherwise.
If these two paramaters are NOT met, then a moral culpability is not possible.
Agree? Disagree? Elaborations? What?
I want to get an idea of WHAT the parameters of moral responsibility and/or culpability entail.
(JO-ANNE) MEPH, I have a question for you, if this makes sense. I'm not sure. Regarding #1. Are you intending that this occurs before they take part in the activity? I am thinking of an example where a person has the cognitive ability, but because that choice has been removed from them, they are not aware of the "impacts and ramifications" until after the "activity" (in which case, I would still consider them to be culpable, though I believe that God understands those circumstances in our lives and that even our justice system takes those things into consideration).
Does this make sense?
Thanks.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/3/2004 7:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph Man. Just some clarifying questions on a sideline issue. You say,
quote:
This merely means that a person has the GENUINE ABILITY to gain this information.
and
Here's the thing. Ignorance CAN be chosen. Some people can, subtlely, REFUSE to see the truth even when they have adequate experiences and information on hand to know the truth.
and
Otherwise, ignorance truly IS bliss…whether or not one actively or passively refuses to see truth.
and
It got me to thinking that not only PARTICIPATION is a factor in culpability but some sense of available AWARENESS.
and
I would say that the vast majority of the time, our ignorance on these matters is chosen, either consciously or subconsciously.
and lastly,
I think that the radical sense of individualism with respect to moral culpability in sinful, evil structures appears to be misplaced based on an INADEQUATE understanding of tenets 1 and 2. With regard to #1, it has often been taken that ignorance IN AND OF ITSELF exonerates. But it doesn't. Self-allowed and self-promoted ignorance has moral ramificaitons.
Now I know that you can't really apply this to God because he not only has an AWARENESS but he has calculated the costs. But in terms of us humans, I'm convinced that a lot of our behavior arises from or flows from the subconscious. In other words we are GENUINELY UNAWARE of what we do sometimes. Remember Greg saying that he called an African American "Chump" one time?
Anyhoo, when we are conscious or when we "self-promote" ignorance or "actively" do so, this is clearly a REFUSAL to see the truth. However, there are times that we do this passively, that is, like you say, we choose ignorance. I liken this to anger. There is the agressive-agressive anger and there is passive-agressive anger. Even though one may be "passive" in this type of anger, it is REALLY still a CHOSEN or conscious form of anger. Question. Are there times when there is GENUINE UNAWARENESS so that one WOULD BE exonerated, i.e. Greg saying, "Chump?"
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Moon River:
quote:
MEPH, I have a question for you, if this makes sense. I'm not sure. Regarding #1. Are you intending that this occurs before they take part in the activity? I am thinking of an example where a person has the cognitive ability, but because that choice has been removed from them, they are not aware of the "impacts and ramifications" until after the "activity" (in which case, I would still consider them to be culpable, though I believe that God understands those circumstances in our lives and that even our justice system takes those things into consideration).
I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding the question. Can you help clarify it for me? Sorry. 
**********************************
Brandon:
quote:
Question. Are there times when there is GENUINE UNAWARENESS so that one WOULD BE exonerated, i.e. Greg saying, "Chump?"
When dealing with specific acts, sure, there may be times when genuine unawareness is the case. But, because of the deceitfulness of the heart, it would be a fruitless waste of energy to try to divine which type of awareness it is. And believe me, where we are genuine unaware of one thing, chances are that we are MERELY unaware of other things.
Thus, the quest for exoneration is a misguided one in the first place. Naamean?
(*************************************
Interestingly enough, it seems that I have a female incarnation. Like the do, too. She said:
quote:
I was thinking about your signature, and maybe what I’m saying about complicity is what makes love in action such a “harsh and dreadful thing.” In ethics the line between good and evil is very clear and goodness is all about staying on the right side of the line. But love risks crossing the line—and therefore taking on guilt—in order to reach the neighbor. God crossed this line in a big way in the incarnation (“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” 2 Cor. 5:21). And God crosses it every time God works to bring whatever good can be brought out of fallen contexts—every time God sits at the table with sinners.
Here’s a little different spin on the whole person/purpose distinction I made earlier. The unsurpassable worth and love God has for every individual person was demonstrated on the cross. This worth is absolute and unchanging. The purposes God has for each person are relative to the good of the whole. If we have truly internalized the depth of God’s love for each one of us, how could we balk at whatever purposes God has for us beyond that, even if they include suffering for the sake of lessening the evil others may face?
Brilliance in motion! Very well said, Mephilady!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/3/2004 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
I was thinking about your signature, and maybe what I’m saying about complicity is what makes love in action such a “harsh and dreadful thing.” In ethics the line between good and evil is very clear and goodness is all about staying on the right side of the line. But love risks crossing the line—and therefore taking on guilt—in order to reach the neighbor. God crossed this line in a big way in the incarnation (“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin” 2 Cor. 5:21). And God crosses it every time God works to bring whatever good can be brought out of fallen contexts—every time God sits at the table with sinners.
Here’s a little different spin on the whole person/purpose distinction I made earlier. The unsurpassable worth and love God has for every individual person was demonstrated on the cross. This worth is absolute and unchanging. The purposes God has for each person are relative to the good of the whole. If we have truly internalized the depth of God’s love for each one of us, how could we balk at whatever purposes God has for us beyond that, even if they include suffering for the sake of lessening the evil others may face?
Finally, I’m through with . Please note my new signature smiley face below.
Peace,
Meph,
• Love in action is always at risk, it’s called sacrificial love. The act of the cross demonstrates the ultimate sacrificial love.
• God is involved with evil only because of the sacrifice he makes to love us.
Keep on smiling, Mark
LFW:
1. God makes the choice for all people. Those not selected for eternal life have grounds for complaint.
2. God invites all but only some respond. Those who don't respond don't have any grounds for complaint, they got what they wanted.
- Albert Einstein, 2004 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2004 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hmmm...how many people read this discussion board ANYWAY? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/3/2004 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by MephEternal
Hmmm...how many people read this discussion board ANYWAY?
I replied, then lost it all...so here goes again (written in letter format)
Dear Meph,'an All (sounds like a mondegreen for...answer at the bottom of this post!)
TO MEPH
I'm assuming by your # 1 that you are referring to individuals who are incapable cognitively of gaining awareness... (babies, people with cognitive delays, disabilities) There is another possibility which I will touch on later.
The problem with 1 and 2 that I can see is that of assessing these objectively.
TO WAHOO
"God would not be complicit because there is room for actions outside of God's will or power to change."
(Jo-Anne) That's right, because of free will of human and other agents. But, more importantly because complicity is not in keeping with the Father's character.
TO BRANDON,
People may not always be in a place where they are able to "count the cost" but they may still be culpable. (more on that later)
I agree with you that if they do not have "the power to do otherwise" that they are not culpable.
Everthing is within God's power. The problem is we associate omnipotence with meticulous control when we should not, right?
God works with the "Schindlers"of this world to minimize evil.
TO MEPH
Things (as evidenced here) are not black and white and never will be.
I wasn't clear in my question earlier to you. I was thinking, as an example for your # 1 about a young girl 25 plus years ago who had an abortion. Education was not emphasized. Often young girls are victims as well as taking part in evil. In this case, even though she did not have the ability to gain awareness, she became aware afterwards and was culpable the entire time. Let me add that God understands the variables in our lives, not just the givens.
MEPH - you said, "Therefore, God would, at least, be morally culpable for the DECISION TO CREATE,..." On Carlie's thread I posted a definition of culpable. IMHO, the word doesn't apply to God in any way. However, when fighting a war, you use the weapons that will accomplish your purposes (does that make you culpable?) I don't believe so. The Father's overarching purpose is to bring about redemption of humanity and restoration of humanity and creation.
He's involved. The only reason it looks muddy is because we are involved as well, along with other free will agents in a complex creation.
Meph, God chose to create because He IS love and love by definition is expressive action, giving of itself - always!
TO SELAH,
Woe is me. What calamity I create at times! J/K My thoughts on those two words - woe and calamity...
He is the God at War" How can He keep from using force at times. This is a real war we are caught up in. War is not pretty.
"I form light and create darkness. I make harmonies and create discords. I, God, do all these things." (The Message Bible)
MEPH,
The terms "lesser evil," complicity and culpable IMHO are problematic when applied to an all powerful, all loving, all good God. There's something really amuck with that.
I think that we should look again at the broader meaning of INVOLVEMENT and frame our thoughts within that framework.
God does not participate in evil. He can not. Could you see Him participating in even the smallest, most insignificant way in Zosia's torture? Nada!
Open view is not "greater good" It was people as puppets (not good) OR people with free will and the opportunity to give and receive love (good). Unfortunately we know what had to accompany God's decision to create that way.
More to follow...
(answer for all you "mondegreen fans" ...
.... "Methanol"
God Bless (and go easy on me Meph!) 
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/3/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by MephEternal
Meph, I appreciate what you believe and say about the Father's love here:
(MEPH) {"The "complicity" idea tells me that God loves us more than God loves staying away from sin. It tells me that God loves us MORE than just trying to exonerate Godself in God's own eyes. It tells me that God loves us enough to be IN the world…and take on what that entails.
This is nothing short of "Amazing Grace" and "Amazing Love"!"}
(JO-ANNE) Jesus, though tempted in every way just as we are, did not sin. He was not culpable because He was not complicit in evil. He is the imprint of the Father. I agree with you on a lot of things Meph. I still feel these words are what most people object to (the words and the meaning attatched to them).
(MEPH) Once I realize that God truly is IN the world working…and NOT ASHAMED to use evil, sinful structures against themselves for redemptive purposes, it forms a natural reframe of how God may work in the world. It brings a complexity to the world that is at times frustrating to deal with, but biblically viable. It makes sense of God's interaction with Pharoah and Egypt. It makes sense of God placing leprosy on Miriam. It makes sense of God using primative war cultures in God's plans. It makes sense of apostles rendering people blind. It makes sense of God using "lesser evils" to achieve "greater goods" It makes sense of God "sacrificing the rook for the queen" It just makes sense.
(JO-ANNE) I'm still trying to understand. Perhaps I don't see it Meph. God does not participate in evil. He did not create evil. Supernatural intervention to accomplish His purposes is not what I would consider using evil. He relates to us in time and in ways that we can understand. His purposes are always to restore and to redeem. He is God and at times uses wrath as a surgeon uses a scalpel, to remove what is evil (minimize evil) and restore life and health (maximize good).
Do you ever wonder if we're getting caught up in terminology? Are we really that far apart in what we believe? Isn't the most important thing how our theodicy enables us to worship the Father by loving as He loves?
(MEPH) This naturally follows #2. Though I have virtually irrefutable evidence of God's love for the world and God's willingness to work IN the world, I now have some serious AMBIGUITY as to how that may play out, with respect to particular evils. I am no longer at liberty to say, in effect:
(MEPH) {"Anywhere you see hatred, sickness, destruction, mistrust, deception, or anything else that is not loving…you can BE SURE that God is not using that AT ALL, but is working against that particular manifestation of evil."}
(JO-ANNE) "This an enemy has done." Yes, there are consequences for wrong choices, for evil, for free will of human and other agents, for the complexity of creation - but the Father is always fighting against evil.
(MEPH) Could it be a divine test? Yes.
(Jo-Anne) could you give an example of this or explain this one?
(MEPH) Could it be divine judgement on sin? Yes.
(Jo-Anne) I think this gets abused so much that I wouldn't want to touch it with a 10 foot poll (pun intended)
(MEPH) Could it be a negative turn on chance events? Yes.
Could it be Satanic or demonic influence? Yes.
Could it be human free will gone bad? Yes.
Could it be the effect of evil systems? Yes.
Could it be the interplay of all of these? YES!
(Jo-Anne) YES !
(MEPH) {"Remember my analogy with the father and the kid cooking in the kitchen. There's TOO much ambiguity to say that we KNOW how God is acting in any given situation."}
(Jo-ANNE) We can know that His character never changes but that He responds with changeable faithfulness to each and every possibility "as if it were the only possibility" (had to get that in there!)
(MEPH) {"We have certainty of God's INTENTION and God's LOVE. We know that God NEVER takes pleasure in evil. We know that God NEVER wants evil to occur for its own sake. We know that God loves EACH and EVERY individual as if they were the only person alive. But given all factors, we are walking pockets of ignorance with regard to this stuff."}
(JO-ANNE) A wopping double AMEN to that Meph!
(MEPH) {"Ask yourself how many times do WE, thinking that WE know what God can and cannot do, bypass opportunity to work with God in what God is doing in the world! Our need for security and stability causes us to TAME the UNTAMED God! We have to KNOW what God does and won't do so that WE won't feel so ambiguous in relating to the world. I wonder how this would have worked for Abraham, the father of faith. Or Peter…you know, the one who just KNEW that God wouldn't want him to associate with the "unclean"}
(JO-ANNE) Now that's a revealing thought, a power-packed one! Yes!
Blessings!
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/3/2004 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephiquote:
Ay, yo. I can respect that. Actually, over 90% of the people polled agree with you. Wow!
Ay, yo. Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set -- totally joking. I read that and laughed so I thought I'd share it 
quote:
Hey...all you nay-sayers out there. Give me something to go on here. Show me where my logic or presupps are mistaken. Heck, just show me how a being can be morally responsible but NOT morally culpable for participation in and through evil systems.
I really am open to change. Just help it MAKE SENSE to me.
There's too MANY of you out there NOT to have some hellafied arguments!
Mephi, I believe you've done this already but could you help me to make sense of your way of seeing God's involvement? Do you hold God morally responsible for having created Satan knowing that he had the potential to fall? Do you hold God responsible when you sin? You see, I don't view God as participating in evil, I view God as participating with evil beings (us). Jesus was the SPOTLESS lamb. Jesus was the only one who walked on this earth with no sin. Mephi, it appears this is very important to you so would you mind helping me, and others, understand why God must be complicit within evil? I don't understand.
Don't you sometimes feel like you're talking two different languages with people when they can't understand your view?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/3/2004 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
I really think that "IN the world, but not OF the world" is an excellent motif to understand God's complicity with evil structure...
(JO-ANNE)
1 How well God must like you - you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road, you don't go to Smart-Mouth College. 2 Instead you thrill to God's Word, you chew on Scripture day and night. 3 You're a tree replanted in Eden, bearing fresh fruit every month, Never dropping a leaf, always in blossom.
4 You're not at all like the wicked, who are mere windblown dust - 5 Without defense in court, unfit company for innocent people. 6 God charts the road you take. The road they take is Skid Row.
- The Message Bible
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 3/3/2004 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
“The "complicity" idea tells me that God loves us more than God loves staying away from sin.”
What about being “involved” in sin… I think the semantics break down for me at the definition of sin. I don’t think that the laws that govern the universe and the laws that tell us we are sinning are sinful in and of themselves. The law of thermodynamics, that matter and energy are changing, breaking down before our very eyes is not evil in and of itself. It is not an agent of free will.
The “sinful” comes as a consequence for the free will in choosing to be disobedient, not in what we might normally classify as sinful. We only really know that we are sinful because of the law. Paul says it loud and clear. Virtually the whole of Romans covers this.
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
“She strongly felt the urge from God to ask this man if she could buy him a beer.”
Buying the guy a beer doesn’t have the qualities of evil. If I was that guy, I might be very touched that someone would think to offer good will to me. I think you need to re-think evil. Too many times Christians are bound to a classification of right and wrong without having the relationship with Mr. Right.
I am with you on this point… I agree that God is present in the whole world especially where sin abounds. But I don’t have to implicate God in the sinfulness of man to see that either.
quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
“Point: To the extent that God USED a product of the evil system (leprosy) for God's own divine ends, God PARTICIPATED with the evil system…and is, in so doing, COMPLICIT in said evil system. God never WANTED leprosy to exist, but since it does God can use it to God's own ends!”
It is at this point where methodology ceases to be evil, young padowan! I would not reject that God is sovereign, but I would choose a different word, unless you were to commandeer that word and make it fit. Is God a sinner? That seems to be the point that you are trying to make.
If we are using the definition of sin given by the puritanicals. The priests, the scribes, pharisaical religio-fascist monopolizers of God, then I am soundly behind your teaching, oh Mephilius. If we get a chance to be implicated, then count me in!
"Are you mad?"
"I see i've come to th' right place then..." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/4/2004 2:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Sir Meffy-Turnal, some questions:
1. The Carlie thread originally started with Carlie and a bunch of Cambodian girls sold into sexual slavery. Generally we see these children as innocents, victims of the sin of others. So question number one is:
Why do you reply with examples of God punishing adults shown to be guilty of sin against God?
Some examples used were:
a. the Flood
b. Sodom and Gomorrah
c. Jerico
d. Meriam
In the cases a, b, and c, God has clearly stated that there was NO righteousness in these localities, hence the inevitability of God's punishment. John Earp has clearly pointed this out as well, only to be ignored by you.
a. God said no one righteous was left on earth except Noah. He removed Noah and destroyed everyone else.
b. God said no one righteous was left except Lot. He removed Lot and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
c. God said the iniquity of Canaan was complete and wanted Israel to destroy all in Canaan, including Jerico.
d. As for Miriam, she was an adult who had sinned against God and was being punished by God.
Now how do any of these apply to Carlie and the Cambodian girls? We don't think these examples do.
And God having a hidden purpose for punishing Carlie and those Cambodian girls is a bad answer. If His purpose is hidden, how do you know it exists?
2. You post examples of people down in the dirt, in the sewage, the dirt/soot/sewage representing evil/sin. 'Of course God gets dirty' is your argument. This is confusing. Does the dirt/soot/sewage represent evil/sin that these people have committed? Or are they victims of evil/sin others have committed against them? Which is it?
Your woman in the sewage, what does that mean? Is she the victim of a rape? Does God have to be a rapist in order to reach down and comfort her and bring good out of the situation?
Is she a thief? Does God have to be a thief in order to convince her to stop stealing?
3. What is an "evil system"? Evil is a noun. It's meaning is "people committing acts of sin". "People committing acts of sin" are responsible for the sin they're committing. How can God be "complicit" in people sinning?
Paul said (Romans 14) that the process of marketing meat had the "evil element" of people sacrificing the meat to an idol within it. Did that make Paul "complicit" by his buying the meat and eating it? The Apostle Paul said NO. The sin of sacrificing the meat to the idol lay on the person who committed that sinful act. Everything else about the system was NOT sinful or evil. The raising of the bovine, the slaughter, the preparation of the meat for market, the selling of the meat at market, the buying, cooking and eating of the meat were ALL good. The one evil element in that "system" did not make Paul "complicit".
And Paul's remedy for removing that evil element was to work on reconciling those people to Jesus Christ.
Don't use dirt/soot/sewage examples, they're confusing and unhelpful. Please use people sinning examples. Thanks
<butterflies and peace and love and blessings and all that>
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
| 163 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:22 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 |
|
|