"Friendship with the world"

by Schizm 108 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Schizm

  3.I would think that involvement in wordly politics would constitute being part of the world. I do not think that holding certain appointed-to or hired-into positions such as City Manager, and so forth would be wrong.--FairMind.

  Well, then Joseph, Mordecai and Daniel must have all been "part of the world" and therefore enemies of God, according to this interpretation, right?--NeonMadman.

  I think that FairMind was quite clear in what he said. So how did you miss the point Neon?

  ... God places the human rulerships in their positions .... --NeonMadman.

  What about Hitler?

  .
• 

  Narkissos

  And I meant what I said up above, that "persons who no longer believe in the Bible are also invited to respond". But you *led* me to believe that you DID believe in the Bible, when in fact you do not. Comments made by you in the other thread (Why Jehovah is not included in some Bible ) would cause anybody not familiar with you to think of you as one who believes the Bible. You knew that! ... and yet you never saw fit to clarify your true position on the Bible. That's *deception* in the truest sense of the word.

  Come on, Schizm, you're making it worse with every word you add.

  Had I wanted to deceive anybody, would I have written in one of my very first posts here that I didn't believe in "God" anymore? It was not so hard to find, since you found it. I took part in a number of Biblical discussions here, and most posters on the same threads know pretty well where I stand (inasmuch as I know it myself). If you had read correctly all my posts on the very thread you are referring to you could have gathered a correct picture. But obviously you did not. Should I state my complete creed before starting any discussion with any new interlocutor?

  The only thing which "led you to believe" something wrong about me was your own prejudice, namely that "unbelievers do not discuss Bible subjects (except to say it is just plain ol' crap)". You were mistaken in this. Learn from it.

  Best wishes,

  Narkissos
• 

  Schizm

  You were mistaken in this.

  BS!

  .
• 

  NeonMadman

  FairMind:

  1. I don't believe Daniel, Josephh or Mordicai were in ELECTED positions, were they? So what they did fits my opinion of being OK.

  OK, point taken - you did make a distinction between elected and appointed positions. But that leads to the question of why you make such a distinction. Is there some scriptural argument you can cite to demonstrate that elected officials are "part of the world" but that appointed officials are not? Could we say that the premiers of the old Soviet Union were "no part of the world" because they were appointed by the Politburo rather than elected by the people?

  Of course you are entitled to draw the line anywhere you want, based upon your own conscience and your personal opinion - and if that is all you are expressing, I respect that. But I don't see a scriptural basis for making that particular distinction.

  Schizm:

  I think that FairMind was quite clear in what he said. So how did you miss the point Neon?

  OK, so I had a "duh" moment. But his position does lead to other questions, as I have enumerated above.

  What about Hitler?

  Well, Scripture does say what I cited - that God is in control of earth's affairs and that he puts human rulerships in their places. At the time that Paul wrote Romans 13, the dominant power was the Roman Empire under the Caesars, which was scarcely better than Hitler's Germany in the way people were treated if they ran afoul of the authorities.

  The alternative would be to assert that God is not in control, and was unable to prevent Hitler from coming to power, which is clearly not a Biblical position. This question hails back to the philosophical problem of evil, which is really the context of the book of Job. Job didn't understand why he was being afflicted, but his sufferings were in line with God's purposes, and therefore were allowed by God. It is of note that God never answers Job's question as to why he suffered; it was incumbent upon Job to understand that God would work everything, even suffering, to produce the greatest ultimate good. Similarly, we may not understand from our limited human viewpoint why bad stuff happens to good people, but if we believe in the God of the Bible, we can have faith that His purpose will ultimately accomplish the greatest good for all.
• 

  Schizm

  Neon,

  What about Hitler?--Schizm.

  Well, Scripture does say what I cited - that [a] God is in control of earth's affairs and that [b] he puts human rulerships in their places. At the time that Paul wrote Romans 13, the dominant power was the Roman Empire under the Caesars, which was scarcely better than Hitler's Germany in the way people were treated if they ran afoul of the authorities.

  The alternative would be to assert that God is not in control, and was unable to prevent Hitler from coming to power, which is clearly not a Biblical position.--Neon.

  I agree with the "a" part of what you say, but not the "b" part. The fact that the text at Romans 13 states that "there is no authority except by God" explains how it can be said that the authorities stand "placed" in their positions by God. In other words, were it not for God's allowing such governments the power that they possess they wouldn't exist. Below is the relevant part of Romans 13.

  1 Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves. 3 For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you, then, want to have no fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.

  5 There is therefore compelling reason for YOU people to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of [ YOUR ] conscience. 6 For that is why YOU are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues, to him who [calls for] the tax, the tax; to him who [calls for] the tribute, the tribute; to him who [calls for] fear, such fear; to him who [calls for] honor, such honor.--Romans 13.

  Other parts of the Bible appear to support the way I've here explained Romans 13. Take for example the 13th chapter of Revelation. I think you'll agree that each of the 7 heads of the wild beast described there represent one of the successive powers that have exercised Universal Rule over mankind from the time of Egypt down to the present day (Rome being represented by the 6th head). Now the thing about it is that the Revelation account (vs 2) says that the wild beast got its authority from the dragon, Satan. So when we consider what Romans 13 says in the light of what other parts of the Bible have to say we are able to arrive at a better understanding of a matter than if we limit ourself to just what one scripture has to say.

  .
• 

  Schizm

  Neon again,

  1. I don't believe Daniel, Josephh or Mordicai were in ELECTED positions, were they? So what they did fits my opinion of being OK.--FairMind.

  OK, point taken - you did make a distinction between elected and appointed positions. But that leads to the question of why you make such a distinction. Is there some scriptural argument you can cite to demonstrate that elected officials are "part of the world" but that appointed officials are not?--Neon.

  Quite obviously, elected officials desire to have a say in the affairs of worldly governments. They want to serve as administrators over peoples of this world, administrators of governments which received their authority from Satan according to what the Bible itself says. So, yes, elected officials are inescapably "part of the world". On the other hand, persons such as Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel were assigned to the positions given them. These 3 men never showed any political inclination towards ruling over a worldly kingdom. They merely agreed to serve in an appointed capacity. To have done otherwise, would have made them supporters of man's system of self-government and "part of the world".

  .
• 

  NeonMadman

  Quite obviously, elected officials desire to have a say in the affairs of worldly governments. They want to serve as administrators over peoples of this world, administrators of governments which received their authority from Satan according to what the Bible itself says. So, yes, elected officials are inescapably "part of the world". On the other hand, persons such as Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel were assigned to the positions given them. These 3 men never showed any political inclination towards ruling over a worldly kingdom. They merely agreed to serve in an appointed capacity. To have done otherwise, would have made them supporters of man's system of self-government and "part of the world".

  So are you saying that someone who wanted to be appointed to a position of power would be part of the world, but someone who just happened to be asked to serve wouldn't? Seems like a pretty fine hair you're splitting there. I don't see the whole idea of being "part of the world" as being particularly aimed at politics, as the JW's do - nothing in the context would lead me to that conclusion, and there are too many scriptures that encourage good citizenship, praying for the king, etc. - plus all the examples of godly people who served in governmental positions. Why should being "part of the world" apply any more to politics than it does to business, for example? I believe it is the way we do things, or the motivations we have, that makes us part of the world, and not the specific things we do. The greedy, power-hungry individual who is seeking elected office for his own personal ends might well be "part of the world," whereas another who seeks elected office for more altruistic reasons might not.

  I can at least see where you are coming from in your take on Romans 13. I am inclined to disagree to a point, in that I think that Paul is pretty explicit, and that the wording does not leave room for God merely allowing governments to exist. But I can see how you would arrive at your conclusions by comparing Revelation 13. I believe that God is completely Sovereign, and "knows the end from the beginning." Therefore, whatever happens is within His will and is at least permitted by Him. To insist that He merely allows that which He clearly has the foreknowledge and the power to change is really more of a semantic discussion. It's a difficult topic, really, and brings the whole issue of free will into question. Obviously, that's an area where good (and some not-so-good) Christians have been disagreeing with each other for centuries. And I can't say that my own theology in that area has been fully formed yet. I'm hoping to get some further clarity on it when I take the Systematic Theology courses that will eventually be required in my current degree program.
• 

  Schizm

  So are you saying that someone who wanted to be appointed to a position of power would be part of the world, but someone who just happened to be asked to serve wouldn't? Seems like a pretty fine hair you're splitting there.

  Yes, that's precisely what FairMind and I both are saying. There's a difference between seeking a position inside a government that received its authority from Satan, and that of being assigned a position inside that same government. In the case of the person seeking a position, even if the motive is pure, the person shows himself to be a supporter of a wild beast that received its authority from God's adversary the Devil, and therefore a wild beast that God does not Himself support. It's quite another matter, however, if a person is assigned a certain task by one who is in authority. The person who undertakes such an assignment can't necessarily be accused of being a supporter of the wild beast, man's system of self-government which has Satan as its god. Also, it's not without good reason that the dragon of Revelation 12 is pictured as having a diadem on each of it's own 7 heads, heads which parallel the 7 heads of the wild beast. Those diadems show that the dragon exercises jurisdiction over each head of the wild beast, thus offering further evidence that the world's governments are not put into place in a way that you seem to want to interpret it.

  .
• 

  NeonMadman

  The person who undertakes such an assignment can't necessarily be accused of being a supporter of the wild beast, man's system of self-government which has Satan as its god.

  Well, there's the missing piece of the puzzle that I had somehow missed. Your position on serving in governmental office is contingent upon accepting the Watchtower's teaching that the "wild beast" of Revelation 13 represents the entire political system of the earth, and you are modifying the plain statements of Romans 13 to harmonize it with that interpretation. That is not the best method of interpretation - plain statements should be taken at face value, and statements that are less clear (or symbolic utterances) should be interpreted in light of what the plain statements say.

  I always had trouble as a JW harmonizing their statements about the governments being under satanic control with the statements in Romans 13 and Daniel 4. It always bothered me that, while Paul wrote that the governments were placed in their positions by God, the Watchtower would alter the meaning to claim that they were merely permitted to exist. They, too, were re-interpreting plain statements of scripture in the light of a symbolic prophecy (the "wild beast" teaching). As a result, they had to develop convoluted explanations to modify the meaning of those plain statements. A much simpler explanation (remember Ockham's Razor?) is that they are just plain wrong about their interpretation of Revelation 13.

  But even if you are right about the "wild beast" being the political governments, I still can't make sense of the dichotomy you draw between elected or appointed positions. What if a Christian were offered an appointment to a position in the Church of Satan? Would he not be culpable in accepting such a position because he did not seek election, but was asked to serve? If the governments of the world really do comprise the "wild beast" that receives its power from Satan (and I do not believe that they are), how could a Christian serve in any capacity without becoming a servant of Satan? Whether elected or appointed would make no difference that I can see - once serving in that position, he would be advancing Satan's agenda.
• 

  onacruse

  Why in the world would God condemn what we are in (read, "have friends in") the world, the world that It Itself created? What are we supposed to be? Hermits, and yet not hermits? Are we supposed to stand back and watch our wives, children and friends be indiscriminately massacred, and subsequently raise our hands toward the sky and say "Allah ahkbar!"?