tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post6652441217937715906..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: 'Judge for Yourself'-- A Sermon on Mt. 7.1-6Ben Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5764816547159121952008-10-26T05:42:00.000-07:002008-10-26T05:42:00.000-07:00well said Josewell said JoseCPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07061614570571933329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-53516418649376754882008-10-21T00:23:00.000-07:002008-10-21T00:23:00.000-07:00From the materialistic, society preservation view ...From the materialistic, society preservation view capital punishment and war make perfect sense. All you need is to develop some objective understanding of justice and then try to carry it out to so that you may reduce the greater evils that tend to develop. In working to reduce the greater evil one might even imagine oneself to not only be the lesser evil but actually the totally good, at least in that coercive action of reducing evil. We see those tough cops or sheriffs in urban crime movies or Western cowboy movies. You smash up the crumb bum criminal and “teach 'em a lesson” and the audience cheers. <BR/><BR/>On a larger scale we have one government that “does not bear the sword in vain” attacking another government that also “does not bear the sword in vain” with millions of people trying to figure out who is less vain and God seemingly caught in this conundrum crying out, “What in heaven’s name is going on here? They don’t know what they are doing.” And internally we have one non-vainly sword bearing nation sending hordes to the Gulags and another to Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, or displacing an entire nation through a trail of tears, while elsewhere we hear a voice exclaim, “all is vanity.” <BR/><BR/>Romans 13 is one of the most misunderstood and misused biblical passages. The government being referred to is Rome, certainly one of the more diabolical governments that has existed and which God nevertheless used to maintain some order. Yet it must not be naively assumed that Rome did not take up the sword “in vain” repeatedly, after all, it crucified Jesus. <BR/><BR/>God uses Rome as he used Babylon, as he uses Satan. This in no way means that Christians are to emulate the tactics of any of these malevolent forces. Christians serve God in a totally different way. You are correct Dr. Witherington, Christians need to set for the world a much higher standard, to be an example of how people who have turned to God must behave. We are sent out as sheep among wolves. We are a people of trust and faith in God’s ultimate sovereignty not Rome’s. There is no contradiction between Romans 13 and the universally applicable Sermon on the Mount. There is only a lack of understanding with weak brothers placing too much emphasis on protecting what is passing away.<BR/><BR/>The thinking trap lies in imagining that somehow a majority of the people will be following Jesus’ non-violent teaching and then the “bad” or “badder” guys will take over. We have no concept of what would happen if a majority of the people practiced what Jesus taught. It is not likely to happen and the world would be totally, unrecognizably different if they did. <BR/><BR/>(It's late and I didn;t check carefully for typos.)<BR/><BR/>Peace.José Solanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04589289554046198929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-8030000887269099482008-10-20T21:45:00.000-07:002008-10-20T21:45:00.000-07:00Dr. Witherington,Two quick questions if you find t...Dr. Witherington,<BR/><BR/>Two quick questions if you find time.<BR/><BR/>#1 - I like what you said about krino, btw. Do you believe that 7.1 could have been referring to an environment of judgment being created by judgments being made on others? In other words, Matthew uses (hina) + subjunctive to show that the command is to stop this cycle of judgments. When one judges the natural tendency is to judge back (as if it was a competition). I'm not proposing that Jesus is calling for the audience to "do nothing" as you stated in your post, but rather to realize that relationships funded by judgments will in fact bring people to a status of being under judgment?<BR/><BR/>Which leads me to question 2. If you accept that or not, could Jesus in this context be referring to his hypocrites as those living "under judgment"? If hupo and krino compounded could be understood in this way, the context would seem to make more sense.<BR/><BR/>It seems like we often interpret hupokrite as one who says one thing and does another, but then we see the same passage telling us not to judge.<BR/><BR/>I understand that a compound work broken in half doesn't always equal up to the meaning of the word as a whole (i.e. a football isn't a ball made of feet), but I wonder if an understanding of hupokrite as one living under judgment could perhaps make more sense of Jesus' use of the word in this passage.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to add much more because I know you have much to read and are very busy, but I would love to hear what you have to say if you find time. I don't know that you agree with me, but I'd love to hear your opinion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>thank you. :)Levihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395422809298131385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-66386538504605672072008-10-18T18:34:00.000-07:002008-10-18T18:34:00.000-07:00Nick: "I do find it interesting, as a Brit AND one...<B>Nick:</B> "<I>I do find it interesting, as a Brit AND one working in prisons and with ex-offenders, to see the debate on the death penatly as it doesn't exisit over here (even a 'life' sentence doesn't necessarily mean that).</I>"<BR/><BR/>You still have a death penalty in the UK, but you (collective) refuse to see it and recognize it as such. Just as the poor will always be with us, so too the death penalty will always be with us. That fact is explained in the very first posted response to Mr Witherington's essay/sermon.<BR/><BR/>And yes, a "life sentence" means nothing of the sort ... this is a perfectly logical (though, of course, quite irrational) consequence of accepting the underlying assumptions of all anti-Capital Punishment arguments and combined especially with the immoral regime of "rehabilitation."<BR/><BR/>The error lies in the abandonment of Justice, substituing for it the anti-judgmental (and utilitarian) Rehabilitation doctrine. Consider the argument of a certain notorious Brit: <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html" REL="nofollow">The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment</A> I am given to understand that a Brit of the prior generation, a chap by the name of "G. K.," had argued much the same.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Nick:</B> "<I>A contact of mine is a Prison governer here in London, and she did a series of interviews with prisoners and discovered that more severe punishments actually did little to deter people from crime, in fact the vast majority talked about a need for investment in things that reduce the likelihood of crime (like good education, employment, healthcare, positive leisure activities, etc) to help prevent people from getting caught in the cycle, not institutionalising or killing people! </I>"<BR/><BR/>Now *there* is a surprise! Some persons caught and convicted of crimes, and incarcerated for the same, echo the silly (illogical and irrational) posturings of the sorts of eggheads who taught them to be criminals in the first place. Whodda thunk!<BR/><BR/>NewsFlash: Criminals Agree: Institutionalisation Is Not The Answer!<BR/><BR/>"<I>That's right, Gov'na, it wadn't *my fault* that I bopped that little old lady; I just got "caught in the cycle." It's *actually* your fault ... well, not *yours* Gov'na, you're a good egg, but "society's" ... 'cause they didn't "invest" in me enough!</I>"<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Nick:</B> "<I>(even a 'life' sentence doesn't necessarily mean that).</I>"<BR/><BR/>When I first read that statement, I took it as at least an expression of bafflement, if not of outrage. But, based on your second paragraph, I suspect I misread you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>NOW, and contrary to the silly posturings of certain "intellectuals," the truth is that punishment for crime can and *does* deter crime. <BR/><BR/>But, a second truth is that to rely upon a "deterence argument" to justify any punishment for crime it to turn Justice on its head; it is to set yourself and your society up to accept injustice. For, after all, an unjust punishment is at least as effective a deterent -- depending upon how "crime" is defined by the State -- as a just one.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Nick:</B> "<I>Just as a closing thought, at least two of the guys I know who share their testimonies at our events wouldn't be around if we had the death penalty...</I>"<BR/><BR/>And how many lives were impacted ... murdered, maimed, raped, terrorized, humiliated ... by the criminals-who-deserve-death but are released back into the general populace to continue their predations? No one asks that, certainly not the State nor the "intellectuals" who are steering the ship of state onto the rocks.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-12195895411609197392008-10-18T15:59:00.000-07:002008-10-18T15:59:00.000-07:00Ilion,You’re wasting your time! ;)I want to offer ...Ilion,<BR/><BR/>You’re wasting your time! ;)<BR/><BR/>I want to offer an apology to you for the tone (at the least) of some of my previous posts. Whatever my reasoning, it was an error on my part.<BR/><BR/><B>Ilion:</B>A man who misconstrues himself (see the above quoted statements) wants to accuse me of misconstruing him!<BR/><BR/>That was pretty funny. Oops. It’s even funnier that I claimed I could state my question better! I’m fairly certain you knew from the context what I meant. I did not ask for a justification, I only wanted a simple explanation of what lexical definition, or otherwise, was intended. No trickery involved. And yes, I still think that you misconstrued my statements. But all is well as it is truly not important, nor is it even germane to the discussion at hand. :)<BR/><BR/><B>Ilion:</B>Once again, you appear to not know what the term means. Or you don't care. And, consistent with your sort, you seek to "refute" what you do not wish to have understood by making false accusatory whines -- "Ilíon is such a meanie! Therefore he's wrong!"<BR/><BR/>Hmmm… You’ve complained so much about this passing remark that I had to go back and read your original post again. Let me offer this apology for asserting that you used ad hominems in your argument. It is clear those comments to which I referred, whatever they might be classified as, do not invalidate your argument. <BR/><BR/>However, I still don’t believe you have adequately, or at all, dealt with my other criticisms.<BR/><BR/>In my understanding of your argument, you continuously treated all death at the hands of a government official as equal, such that there is no difference between an “on-the-fly” death and the implementation of capital punishment. So, when you say that “to abolish capital punishment is to abolish all government” it is simply wrong by the lexical definition of capital punishment. It is a punishment for a crime. It is putting a condemned person to death. I still contend that you must distinguish between these different types of state-imposed death. If you have provided an explanation for this, I must apologize for having missed it and still criticizing.<BR/><BR/>It is true that government works on the principal of coercion, in a social contract this is a mutual coercion. And I agree that this must mean the use of force up to death, such that a state agent could shoot someone during the commission of a crime, or even in fleeing the scene of a crime (which is a crime). But I do not see that this holds for capital punishment proper.<BR/><BR/>You finally recognized this difference near the end of this thread, though you ignored it when I pointed it out earlier. According to you it is the “the difference of deliberation versus passion.” I do have to challenge this assessment, and the conclusions you draw from it. A sniper shooting hostage holder is a deliberate action that could be quite devoid of passion and is totally deliberate. Likewise, the history of capital punishment is rife with examples of passion. Many might say the sniper has ice in his veins (that he is a cold-blooded in killing), but I don’t think those who oppose the death penalty would consider is a moral outrage. At least, that’s how I see it, and I certainly can’t speak for everyone else.<BR/><BR/>I think the difference is one of necessity. In capital punishment a perfectly reasonable alternative exists: life imprisonment. Like just war, it should be a tactic of last resort. When someone is already incarcerated the death penalty is unneeded. Even “on-the-fly” deaths are limited in their application; state agents cannot simply shoot a criminal for any reason.<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you a question (no tricks, just a simple question as a part of a larger discussion). In Matthew 19:7-11 we see Jesus responding to the question of divorce. (It takes a little setup, so bear with me as I present my thinking.) Jesus greatly limits the viable reasons for divorce and explains that Moses’ allowance of other reasons was due to the hardness of hearts. The ultimate will of God is that those divorces would not occur. It is a broken world and God works with human imperfection. In doing so He has allowed things such as this. It is still practical for today. Jesus did not say anything about a woman who is being beaten by her husband as having sufficient reason for divorce. But, it is a broken world, and while divorce is wrong, it is less wrong than the alternative. Likewise, God works with governments, broken governments (I do not think any are moral), to stave off chaos within the world (prevent flooding, if you will). He can do magnificent things with the most insufficient of tools. Meanwhile, He also implemented a plan to reconcile the world to Himself: the people of God. His people would inhibit kingdom values, values that became clearer through progressive revelation that climaxed with the incarnation. Thus, Moses once allowed what Jesus is now correcting. We get a similar thing with eye for an eye and turn the other cheek. <BR/><BR/>In the Kingdom, there will be no capital punishment, hence the church (being the here) should be without it. Ultimately, capital punishment is wrong. For states I would even call it immoral right now (since it is unnecessary). Ultimately, all state killing is wrong, though the broken world may require it right now. God uses this imperfect tool to retain order in the world.<BR/><BR/>By the way, it is interesting to me that I thought the state made the right decision (on the basis of its laws) with regards to Schiavo. I have been in a very similar position to that of Mr. Schiavo, and I truly feel for all involved. These things are not so simple.<BR/><BR/>Shalom,<BR/>DougDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763751386118123751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-88962465192194102852008-10-18T14:33:00.000-07:002008-10-18T14:33:00.000-07:00Brilliant sermon Dr Witherington, I have a great d...Brilliant sermon Dr Witherington, I have a great deal of respect for your writings (your commentary on Corinthians helped me a great deal in writing my best paper at seminary!).<BR/><BR/>I do find it interesting, as a Brit AND one working in prisons and with ex-offenders, to see the debate on the death penatly as it doesn't exisit over here (even a 'life' sentence doesn't necessarily mean that). <BR/><BR/>A contact of mine is a Prison governer here in London, and she did a series of interviews with prisoners and discovered that more severe punishments actually did little to deter people from crime, in fact the vast majority talked about a need for investment in things that reduce the likelihood of crime (like good education, employment, healthcare, positive leisure activities, etc) to help prevent people from getting caught in the cycle, not institutionalising or killing people!<BR/><BR/>Just as a closing thought, at least two of the guys I know who share their testimonies at our events wouldn't be around if we had the death penalty...Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00174572895957598615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1022338379033290232008-10-17T20:15:00.000-07:002008-10-17T20:15:00.000-07:00Doug: "Ilion, you misconstrued what I wrote into w...<B>Doug:</B> "<I>Ilion, you misconstrued what I wrote into what you thought I meant and offered a response that was totally inadequate for the questions I posed. <BR/>... <BR/>I did not ask Lemuel to justify anything, but instead I asked for a simple justification.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Man! I'm laughing so hard I can barely breathe!<BR/><BR/>A man who misconstrues himself (see the above quoted statements) wants to accuse me of misconstruing him!<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Doug:</B> "<I>Of course, as your most recent comment to me shows, you can blow off my points of contention to your “argument” with yet <B>another</B> abusive ad hominem if you wish. At least it is fairly consistent for you.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Once again, you appear to not know what the term means. Or you don't care. And, consistent with your sort, you seek to "refute" what you do not wish to have understood by making false accusatory whines -- "<I>Ilíon is such a meanie! Therefore he's wrong!</I>"<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Doug:</B> "<I>In the end, your “argument” for capital punishment is not convincing.</I>"<BR/><BR/>That must explain why both you and Mr Witherington have needed to use various logical fallacies to "refute" it -- I mean, even aside from the fact that I clearly stated that I made no argument *for* capital punishment; rather, I presented an argument which shows us the fallacious nature of all arguments to date against capital punishment, and which strongly indicates that all future attempted arguments against capital punishment will be likewise flawed.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-58186811552022405872008-10-17T18:58:00.000-07:002008-10-17T18:58:00.000-07:00Stanford J. Young: "... [many good things] ... Wha...<B>Stanford J. Young:</B> "<I>... [many good things] ... What I think you fail to see, Ben, is that there is a clear tension between the new creation and still living within the present creation; ... [many good things] ...</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yes. That "<I>the Gospel is foolishness to the Greeks</I>" does not at all mean that the Gospel actually is foolishness -- for instance, the Gospel is not self-contradictory, which would indeed be a very serious foolishness, one of the worst. The reason "<I>the Gospel is foolishness to the Greeks</I>" is because it rejects and denies certain assumptions necessary to 'worldly' world-view(s), on the one hand, and asserts and affirms certain assumptions which 'the world' must always reject, on the other hand.<BR/><BR/>If we claim that according to the Gospel capital punishment is by its very nature always wrong -- that it is wicked, that it is sin -- and if we also claim that according to the Gospel governments among men are established by God to act, among other things, as his agents of judgment upon evildoers (and which claim is explicitly made in Scripture), then we are asserting a self-contradiction in the Gospel. For, since <I>all</I> human government is based upon compulsion and ultimately upon imposition of death upon those who will not comply with its dictates (nor can human government ever be otherwise), it is logically impossible to have both government and lack of death penalties. This is to demand that '<I>A</I>' equal '<I>not-A</I>.'<BR/><BR/>Further, as the Gospel is the way of life, rather than of death, one does not expect the Gospel to lead to death. Certainly, in faithfulness to the Gospel one might have to surrender one's (physical) life in certain types of circumstances. But one does not expect fidelity to the Gospel to destroy the life of a society or people; rather, one expects the Gospel to cultivate the life of a nation, even when only a minority of that nation are Christians.<BR/><BR/>The difference between imposition of capital punishment and imposition of the death penalty which is at least implicit in all human laws which compel is the difference of deliberation versus passion -- but in either case, someone ends up dead.<BR/><BR/>In fact, recognition of that key difference is the very reason most opponents of capital punishment take the position -- they are emotionally, non-rationally (frequently anti-rationally) rejecting the justice of capital punishment precisely because the judgment and execution of the judgment is properly done "in cold blood."<BR/><BR/>All arguments which have ever been advanced against capital punishment can even more easily be advanced against enforcement of any particular law, and against justice in general.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thus, in Switzerland, we now find that even plants have "human rights" (so to speak), but actual humans, made in the Image of God, do not even have worth. Thus, in Switzerland, we now find the advocates for "assisted suicide" lobbying the society and governments to compel all state-subsidized old-folks homes (which is to say, ultimately, all of them) to allow them access to the residents. When this lobbying is decided -- and is there *really* much question how it will be decided -- what do you imagine will be the result if the staff of some facility refuses to comply? This is already decided -- armed agents of the state will, under threat of immediate death, force compliance and the staff will be compelled to stand-by or even assist. This is much as in the US when armed agents of the state forced everyone, including her own family, to stand by (or even assist) as Terri Schiavo was slowly and gruesomely murdered judiciously.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-30308022836649368642008-10-17T08:57:00.000-07:002008-10-17T08:57:00.000-07:00In general a very good sermon BW3. But, I too beli...In general a very good sermon BW3. But, I too believe you have failed to adequately recognize the tension between personally avoiding vengeance (the Rom. 12 statements you quoted) and capital punishment. It is not so clear cut as you think. <BR/><BR/>First, "bearing the sword" implies use of it. If there was not a real use by the government, it would not be a sword at all. This is part of the tension of living with a salvation that is "present, but not yet." And, Rom. 13 falls within the very context of God's vengeance (it is quite clear that Paul is arguing that governments are one of the avenues for God bringing vengeance on the evil doer). Using the sword will, at times, mean death. No amount of rhetoric can get around that. <BR/><BR/>Further, Genesis 9:6, which is not negated by the cross (it comes both before the Law of Moses and the promise to Abraham - and is given universally to mankind, not to Israel), supports the death penalty. I'm not just proof-texting there, it stands on solid exegetical ground - even from a narrative interpretive framework. "If any man shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The taking of life is of such import to God that life is required. This forfeiting of life does not mean one is condemned eternally. There simply are material consequences - as there were for David with his family (2 Sam. 11 ff). Mercy and forgiveness are not to be confused with justice on a temporal level. One can invoke both as God consistently does with David. <BR/><BR/>What I think you fail to see, Ben, is that there is a clear tension between the new creation and still living within the present creation; so that while Paul recognizes that while we strive on the personal level to not condemn (spiritually) nor to take our own vengeance - he is not arguing against capital punishment. Even Jesus, as is often assumed, in his famous "eye for an eye" statement (Mt. 5:38-39) is not abrogating government punishment of the evil doer (including capital punishment) but is correcting the misconceptions of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Mt. 5:17-20, 43ff). Neither Paul in Rom. 12-13 nor Jesus in Mt. 5 are seeking to abrogate actions by society that would invoke a God-ordained vengeance (Rom. 13:4). They do call those in the community of faith to live in peace with all men.Stanford J. Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03626466136123744600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-75231657234351050202008-10-16T02:56:00.000-07:002008-10-16T02:56:00.000-07:00Ilion, you misconstrued what I wrote into what you...Ilion, you misconstrued what I wrote into what you thought I meant and offered a response that was totally inadequate for the questions I posed. And, what I meant to ask <I>is exactly</I> what I wrote. You are not so superior that you should presume to understand my questions better than me and also be able to better pose them than I can. Had someone else done similar to your post I would unfortunately have to read, yet again, how no one actually reads what you wrote.<BR/><BR/>I did not ask Lemuel to justify anything, but instead I asked for a simple justification. As someone who purports to use logic you should understand that words have different meanings and that it is necessary to clearly define them in an argument. From your first post it is obvious that this concept escapes you. Logic seems to be merely a word you are throwing around to make yourself look superior and to give your argument weight which it ultimately cannot support. It is an emotional ploy.<BR/><BR/>I only wanted clarification on which lexical definition was being employed when using the term ordained. Was some sort of holy function implied (I know many people who think this)? Did God order the government into existence? No justification is necessary, nor was it requested. The example of Revelation offers a practical application of this term, not a justification that must meet my satisfaction. And lastly, I asked for Bible verses (thank you Lemuel). Again, this was not a justification; it was for my own edification. Unlike you, I do not presume to be the smartest person in the room.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I do recognize that all authority is ultimately authority derived from God. But, our conclusions about how to apply this are probably different. Unfortunately, my already formed belief that all authority derives from God shows that your assumptions about what <I>you thought I meant</I>, were flat wrong.<BR/><BR/>Of course, as your most recent comment to me shows, you can blow off my points of contention to your “argument” with yet <B>another</B> abusive ad hominem if you wish. At least it is fairly consistent for you.<BR/><BR/>In the end, your “argument” for capital punishment is not convincing.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763751386118123751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-2399647715065438852008-10-15T18:18:00.000-07:002008-10-15T18:18:00.000-07:00Mr Witherington, if you have previously received t...Mr Witherington, if you have previously received this content and chose to not allow it to appear publically, then please forgive me for sending it to you the second time. For, after all, I don't know that you did get it in the first place: perhaps I only (incorrectly) remember posting it, perhaps it went into the Internet's bit-bucket, perhaps any number of things kept it from reaching you.<BR/>===========<BR/><BR/><B>BW3:</B> "<I>Ilion my view of government is shaped by the NT itself. I do not see it as an entity that operates on Christian principles, nor did the NT writers.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I doubt not that the fact that governments do not operate on Christian principles is highly relevant, were we talking about the price of chocolates in Switzerland -- and, by the by, you were spot on: I have never spent any time at all in Switzerland. I also do not have any obviously meaningless letters after my name. <BR/><BR/>But the issue is not the price of chocolates in Switzerland; the issue is faulty reasoning about capital punishment.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>BW3:</B> "<I>The issue is not one of simple logic ...</I>"<BR/><BR/>And the deeper issue is (now) faulty reasoning, period, and a clear disinclination to reason properly.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>BW3:</B> "<I>My concern is that there is an ethic which Christians themselves must follow, and this constrains the way in which they should endorse certain governmental policies, or at least constrains their own participation in them. It's a perfectly logical stance.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Ought you not make up your mind? Does logic matter here, or does it not?<BR/><BR/>How are we to discover and extend this Christian ethic absent an inviolate commitment to the use of rigorous logic in all our reasonings? Can any reasoning that is not conducted by rigorous standards of logic even be honestly called reasoning?<BR/><BR/>Can any reasoning, no matter how rigorous the logic, be honestly called reasoning if it ignores relevant known facts?<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>BW3:</B> "<I>My concern is that Christians, in whatever role they play in society act like Christ and like he taught us to do. For example, what this means for me is that Christians should not participate in the military, except perhaps in non-combatant roles, by which I mean as medics and chaplains.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Which is to say, that such a view and such an ethic is not *really* a logically necessary corollary of a commitment to Christ, but is rather the personalized millstone you have willingly imposed upon yourself. You have, in effect, declared that you are one of those "weaker brothers" Paul told us about -- you are very like those (among whom I grew up) who insist that in the Bible "wine" is *really* grape juice.<BR/><BR/>AND -- much like those who wrongly (and foolishly) insist that <I>wine</I> is *really* grape juice, and from which "weaker brother" position conclude that those who deny this are not faithfully following Christ, you appear to be attempting to turn you own "weaker brother" position into one of the litmus tests for noticing the goats amongst the sheep.<BR/><BR/>Now, about what I said at the first ... ?<BR/><BR/><BR/>(ps. BW3 and Gentle Reader may notice that I am intentionally ignoring the more blatant rabbit-trails.)Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-19777821692690891912008-10-15T18:06:00.000-07:002008-10-15T18:06:00.000-07:00Doug: "ilion, from your posts is seems quite reaso...<B>Doug:</B> "<I>ilion, from your posts is seems quite reasonable to say that you fancy yourself a person of logic, even to the point of employing “emotion-based” in a derogatory manner. ...</I>"<BR/><BR/>Oh! I'm far more radical than that! I even imagine that *you* are a rational being. That you do not consistently behave as one is quite a different matter.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Doug:</B> "<I>... If I read you incorrectly, my apologies, but it doesn’t change the fact that your initial argument is riddled with fallacies and your following posts do nothing to correct them.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Your "exposition" of these asserted fallacies shows you to be quite the emotion-monger. And I don't allow emotion-mongers to waste my time.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Doug:</B> "<I>[whine, whine, whine] You employ abusive ad hominems [whine, whine, whine]</I>"<BR/><BR/>Clearly, you don't know what the term means.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89447382759439276972008-10-15T17:56:00.000-07:002008-10-15T17:56:00.000-07:00Doug: "ilion and lemuel, I must disagree with lemu...<B>Doug:</B> "<I>ilion and lemuel, I must disagree with lemuel and say that ilion’s response was highly inadequate. I asked three things, none of which ilion answered. ...</I>"<BR/><BR/>I must concur, in part: Ilíon did not, nor intended to, respond to what Doug literally wrote. Rather, Ilíon responded to he understands Doug to have meant -- but, at the same time, his response was at least "quite adequate" to the task set before it. And, Doug's second post confirms to Ilíon that his understanding of what Doug really meant in the first post was, likewise, at least "quite adequate." <BR/><BR/><BR/><B>This is what Doug literally wrote to Lemuel:</B> "<I>What exactly do you mean that "government is clearly a divinely-ordained institution?" Does this go for the government as presented in Revelation? What verse leads you to this statement?</I>"<BR/><BR/><B>This is what Ilíon understands Doug to have meant:</B> "<I>Lemuel, I want you to justify [to my satisfaction, and I am the judge of that] the statement that "</I>government is clearly a divinely-ordained institution<I>." FOR IF it is true that "</I>government is clearly a divinely-ordained institution<I>," THEN it must also be true that all specific governments at all times are acting on God's authority </I>[ ?? and perhaps according to God's law ?? ]<I>. YET, in the Revelation is described a government which is in open rebellion against God's authority and seeks to usurp his place and authority. NOW, SINCE it is the case that there exists/will exist a specific government in open rebellion against God's authority, it must not be the case after all that government, in general, derives its authority from God.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Ilíon, as he intends always to do, seeks to see and grasp the real or deeper issue, rather than merely grapple with the often misleading surface manifestation. In this case, Ilíon sees the problem as a flawed premise hidden in what he understands Doug to have really been asking; to wit: that which is ordained by God cannot be put to corrupt or unGodly uses.<BR/><BR/>But, in fact, even the anti-Christ's wicked "<I>government is clearly a divinely-ordained institution</I>." For the anti-Christ's government is God's judgment upon sinful humanity -- just as the Assyrian conquest of Israel and the Chaldean conquest of Judea were judgment upon the ancient Israelites.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-15630195366354560812008-10-15T16:56:00.000-07:002008-10-15T16:56:00.000-07:00For example, Mr Roozen, I know from long experienc...For example, Mr Roozen, I know from long experience of trying to deal with humans that many readers are going to take cpapashley's two posts of <I>non sequitur</I> and out-of-context disputation as being the definitive refutation of what I'd said. I know from experience that many readers are going to "know" that I asserted that a society or political state which does not impose the death penalty -- officially -- must necessarily be full of insane persons. And so on.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44182947274481072152008-10-15T16:38:00.000-07:002008-10-15T16:38:00.000-07:00Doug,If you want verses that government is both Go...Doug,<BR/><BR/>If you want verses that government is both God-ordained AND legitimate, let's go with the oft-quoted Romans 13, John 19:11, 1 Peter 2:13-14. The fact that there are Caesars and Nazis and bloodthirsty Communists does not overturn the reality of these verses.<BR/><BR/>What we have in such cases is a perversion of government. They are still governments in the sense that a bad marriage is still a marriage - because God recognizes it as such. <BR/><BR/>When these governments' laws contradict God's laws, God is of course to be obeyed (Acts 5:29). The non-contradictory laws must still be obeyed, however. <BR/><BR/>To say that government is "legitimate" according to the Bible is saying that God approves of its existence and it is lawful according to him, contrasting it to other institutions, like abortion clinics, brothels, what have you. A Christian could not participate in such institutions without sinning, but he could participate in government in the same way he could work at a factory, a restaurant, whatever. A Christian magistrate would be expected to use his power in ways acceptable to God, in the same way a Christian stockbroker would be expected to be honest, a lawyer would be expected to adhere to strict standards of fairness, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-71567949781474592472008-10-15T16:13:00.000-07:002008-10-15T16:13:00.000-07:00Levid Roozen: "I wasn't suggesting that at all and...<B>Levid Roozen:</B> "<I>I wasn't suggesting that at all and I thank you for your kind supposing that I was making no mistake in the my imagination.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Of course; that was obvious. <BR/><BR/>But people do constantly misconstrue what others have written -- even though it's right there in black-and-white and even though there is nothing holding them back from rereading it until they get it right. Knowing that from long experience, I could just see someone misconstruing what you'd written as a "refutation" of (or an "agreement" with ... and some having it as both!) my "claim" that the USSR and the USA were/are morally equivalent.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-32615656340274896562008-10-15T15:53:00.000-07:002008-10-15T15:53:00.000-07:00ilion, from your posts is seems quite reasonable t...ilion, <BR/><BR/>from your posts is seems quite reasonable to say that you fancy yourself a person of logic, even to the point of employing “emotion-based” in a derogatory manner. If I read you incorrectly, my apologies, but it doesn’t change the fact that your initial argument is riddled with fallacies and your following posts do nothing to correct them. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>You equivocate “capital punishment” with “death by any state agent” thereby using a definition for capital punishment that is certainly not lexical and is unrecognizable to anyone familiar with the term. Punishment by death cannot be exacted without due process, which excludes your definition. If someone gets shot by a police officer, calling that capital punishment is merely hyperbole. If the officer was exacting punishment, it wouldn’t be state sanctioned and would then be deemed murder.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>You create a false dilemma that reeks of arrogance and is quite offensive when you suggest that anyone who opposes the death penalty either has “not thought about it” or is “lying.” Other options do exist. I’m sure you can come up with a few if you try really hard.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Assuming that social contracts are underwritten by state-sanctioned death is ultimately begging the question. There is an underlying assumption that coercion must finally be delivered in the form of capital punishment that denies the possibility of life imprisonment or other forms of coercion. If you respond, please try to separate capital punishment and being killed in the commission of a crime.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>You employ abusive ad hominems to further your argument when stating that anyone who thinks opposite is “emotion-based” and squeamish. And I assure you; with a rudimentary knowledge of Christian pacifism you will not employ the term “squeamish” to describe a pacifist again. Don’t confuse liberal and modern pacifism with Christian pacifism.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763751386118123751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-46007674967900814952008-10-15T15:52:00.000-07:002008-10-15T15:52:00.000-07:00ilion and lemuel, I must disagree with lemuel and ...ilion and lemuel,<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>I must disagree with lemuel and say that ilion’s response was highly inadequate. I asked three things, none of which ilion answered. I asked what was meant by the term “divinely ordained institution” and ilion did not answer. Instead, ilion repeated that it is ordained, thereby using the same word on which I was asking for further explanation. The analogy provided no insight into the usage of the word. I asked about the government in Revelation and ilion did not address this at all, though lemuel did later. I asked for verses that led lemuel to this conclusion, and none were provided. Conclusions are easy to provide without premises to support them, but they are worthless in arguments. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>lemuel states that Jesus “acknowledges the legitimacy of governments” in place of “divinely-ordained institution” in his reply that builds on yours. So I will assume, though it isn’t stated directly, that this is what was meant by the phrase divinely-ordained. However, “acknowledging legitimacy” and “divinely-ordaining” have enough difference between them to raise the question again. Yes, they could mean the same thing, but there is nothing about the context of this conversation to suggest that they do, or to suggest that it has been thought through all that well to begin with. So, what does one mean by the phrase “divinely-ordained institution?” What verses support this? And, to add one more, what does it mean for a government (such as that depicted in Revelation or Nazi Germany) to be “divinely-ordained” and “acknowledged as legitimate” by Jesus when its actions and laws certainly are not?Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763751386118123751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-4929651424193393852008-10-15T07:51:00.000-07:002008-10-15T07:51:00.000-07:00Dear ilion,"ilion: I get so tired of dealing with ...Dear ilion,<BR/><BR/>"ilion: I get so tired of dealing with people who cannot read-with-comprehension ... and then insist upon having their emoting treated as rational argument."<BR/><BR/>I fail to understand why the upset with my comment. <BR/><BR/>My thought was simply based on this:<BR/><BR/>Coming from a specific thoughtworld where capital punishment is not a reality (Australia) makes it hard for me to comment on the discussion. Which is what I said.<BR/><BR/>However, in Australia. I do not see anarchists running riot in our country. I am not an anarchist who is insane, yet I am *honestly* against capital punishment. So your comment<BR/><BR/>ilion said: "The only sort of persons in this entire world who can *honestly* claim to be against the death penalty are anarchists -- and they're insane. By choice. Anarchists are against "state execution" and *for* private/personalized murder, followed by endless blood-feud."<BR/><BR/><BR/>From my hermenuetic lens, does not make any sense in the context of the world I live in.<BR/><BR/>No need to call me someone who cannot read with comprehension, I am unable to understand your hermenuetic, so I am merely commenting from mine.<BR/><BR/>If that is emotive argument, then so be it. I guess largely I saw yours in the same manner, but realised it was because of my different world view. So could not enter into the argument, other than making a statement from my worldview.<BR/><BR/>I guess I ask the question have you been raised in a society with or without capital punishment. If with, then you will not understand my comment, and will call it emotive. Yet to many from my worldview it would seem quite sensible and rational.Ashley Biermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15803750641484381868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-80531652972062657132008-10-15T07:42:00.000-07:002008-10-15T07:42:00.000-07:00Dear brother Ben:I enjoyed this sermon and plan to...Dear brother Ben:<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed this sermon and plan to cite portions of it in my blog.<BR/><BR/>I do disagree on the capital punishment issue, however.<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/><BR/>StephenStephen Garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10866698322854892197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-18714296344648962102008-10-14T23:07:00.000-07:002008-10-14T23:07:00.000-07:00ilion--I wasn't suggesting that at all and I thank...ilion--<BR/><BR/>I wasn't suggesting that at all and I thank you for your kind supposing that I was making no mistake in the my imagination.<BR/><BR/>Quite the opposite, I thought it might give you a little satisfaction to know that someone's idea of Jesus had spoken nearly the very same words as you. I, too, agree that government is coercion, among other things.Levid Roozenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03089341793860673896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-45168660193380399992008-10-14T22:44:00.000-07:002008-10-14T22:44:00.000-07:00Doug,Ilion's response is quite adequate. Even Jes...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Ilion's response is quite adequate. Even Jesus acknowledges the legitimacy of governments when brought before Pilate. To be sure, Revelation describes a perversion of government (like other passages, i.e. Romans 1, describe perversions of sex) and then goes on to describe, quite colorfully, God's method of dealing with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-20370724546207841742008-10-14T19:33:00.000-07:002008-10-14T19:33:00.000-07:00Doug, government -- in general -- is ordained and ...Doug, government -- in general -- is ordained and established by God. A specific government, however, or a specific policy, may well be in violation of God's laws.<BR/><BR/>An analogy: sex is ordained and established and blessed and sanctified by God. However, not all acts of sex are holy, some are quite unholy.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21404577719613901342008-10-14T18:48:00.000-07:002008-10-14T18:48:00.000-07:00Levid Roozen: "Bulgakov was writing during a time ...<B>Levid Roozen:</B> "<I>Bulgakov was writing during a time when the death sentence was manipulated in the most grotesque way - at the height of Stalinist terrors. His Jesus concurs with Ilion, saying that all government is coercion.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Mr Roozen, <BR/>I'm sure you're not making the mistake of imagining that I'm one of those silly people who draws a false moral equivalency between the regime of the USSR and that of the USA. But, long experience has taught me that many people seem quite incapable (or quite unwilling) to comprehend what they read.<BR/><BR/>So, to be explicit: I am not trying to equate the government of the US with that of the USSR or any other such ghastly and immoral State. <BR/><BR/>I am, rather, pointing out the inescapable truth that all laws which command (*) are inherently backed up by a death penalty. Further, by the very nature of the beast, this death penalty, when it is meted out, is never meted out with the careful safegards that we have erected around the imposition of capital punishment.<BR/><BR/>(*) The exceptions would be things like the law which establishes "National Dental Floss Awareness Day"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89961415528974658922008-10-14T18:44:00.000-07:002008-10-14T18:44:00.000-07:00Lemuel,What exactly do you mean that "government i...Lemuel,<BR/><BR/>What exactly do you mean that "government is clearly a divinely-ordained institution?" Does this go for the government as presented in Revelation? What verse leads you to this statement?<BR/><BR/>Shalom,<BR/>DougDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763751386118123751noreply@blogger.com