3 ms·

> The choice is between trying stop an ongoing harm or not trying to stop it. That is the normal choice that any person has to make, there's nothing Christian

by tines 2y ago

> The choice is between trying stop an ongoing harm or not trying to stop it. That is the normal choice that any person has to make, there's nothing Christian about this, nor about the decision that Bonhoeffer made. Any atheist would agree with him that you've got to minimize harm, etc. The relevant choice for the Christian is to decide whether we're going to "use evil for good" in a way that only God can facilitate, by loving our enemies and dying for them, as Christ died for his enemies. > What you present isn't a third option, it's just a particular mindset about the second one. It's not "just" a mindset because it restricts (and expands) the options you can take. Isn't Bonhoeffer's stance "just" a mindset, because regardless of why you're killing your enemies, they end up dead anyway? An atheist killing Nazis and Bonhoeffer killing Nazis only differ in what they're saying, not really what they're doing. A Christian not resisting evil and loving their enemies is identifiable both by word and deed. > Many christians do accept that as the only choice. Others finds that they are compelled to action, and consider this a personal failure to remain peaceful in the face of great evil. You're construing this as a choice between action and inaction, so I don't think we understand each other yet. Was Jesus action-less when he came to the earth to die for his enemies? Or did he take action to not-resist evil, love and die for his enemies, and bear the sins of the world? What I'm suggesting as the Christian approach to this is very active, but not to kill our enemies the same way literally everyone else does. It's to feed our enemies when they're hungry, give them drink when they're thirsty, and stand in the way of the bullets when they're fired at others, all the while proclaiming our love for them, and God's love, so that they would quit trying to earn their righteousness by good works, and believe on Christ for righteousness. This is all and only what Jesus did, and bade us do. > Not all sin is avoidable, a sinless choice is not guaranteed. This might be your opinion, but I'm not sure you could find any support for this in scripture. I'm also not sure that we can take Bonhoeffer's decision as anything other than the proposition that Jesus would have killed Nazis too. Is that the road we want to go down? (I presume he wouldn't be defending a choice to do something that Jesus wouldn't have done.) Maybe the answer here is that I just need to read his book first. > Contemporary Theology Understander: We cannot do evil so that good may come of it ... that is evil. > Big Brother D, unable to escape the conclusion that he must kill nazis: Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner. The problem with this is that Big Brother D is morally equivalent before God to the Nazi, so in deciding the fate of the Nazi, he's deciding his own fate: he's too evil to let live, he should be put down. This is Brother D acting like he's still under the Law, which says, "The man who does these [good] things shall live [and by implication, the man who does bad things shall die]." According to Jesus, God cannot and will not have mercy on a (n undeserving) man who does not have mercy on (undeserving) others. There is no forgiveness for those who do not forgive others. Bringing death on others is asking for death upon ourselves (and for consistency, everyone else). Bonhoeffer can't have mercy for himself and death for others. And isn't this the thing that sets Christianity apart? Otherwise Jesus' earth-shattering teachings become just another "treat people nice who are nice to you, punish the bad guys" idea like every other one out there. My personal feeling is that trying to give up this nigh-impossible teaching is trying to give up the heart of Christianity, the core beauty and truth. Christianity has nothing attractive about it if we rip out the core and everything else that depends on it, imo. Sorry for the long post.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
I suspect we're just from significantly different soteriological traditions. I'm greek orthodox and consider scripture to be the single most important, but not the only, means of understanding correct action. I don't place limits on god's grace or attempt to guess who will or won't be forgiven for what. The only sinless one is Christ himself, every one of the rest of us will plea for mercy and I pray we all receive it. Bonhoeffer's conundrum was that he perceived inaction to be as damning as any action available to him. I think there's room for disagreement about whether that was truly the case. But I find the difficulty in discerning righteous action in crisis relatable, and I appreciate how he engaged with it.
- tines 2y ago
  > I'm greek orthodox and consider scripture to be the single most important, but not the only, means of understanding correct action Interesting. Do you consider an action to be incorrect if it doesn't agree with scripture? Or can other things override scripture? > I don't place limits on god's grace or attempt to guess who will or won't be forgiven for what Do you place the limits that God himself placed? (Referring to Matthew 6:14-15 and James 2:13, assuming you believe Jesus' and James' words are God's word.) > Bonhoeffer's conundrum was that he perceived inaction to be as damning as any action available to him. I think there's room for disagreement about whether that was truly the case. But I find the difficulty in discerning righteous action in crisis relatable, and I appreciate how he engaged with it. I don't think we disagree that he was in a difficult situation. I'm simply arguing that he "gave up" and took the non-Christian way out of the core Christian dilemma, and worse, he's convincing other people that it was the Christian thing to do. Forgive me if I sound glib over such a serious matter, I just don't have a lot of time to edit my posts right now. (Also I'm not downvoting you.)
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    It's not that scripture says one thing and we can do another. It's that we need the guidance of tradition to know what scripture is saying to us, and how to apply it to our own lives. Scripture and orthodox tradition both are inconsistent about the compatibility of mercy and action to prevent an ongoing harm. We aren't to weigh the good and evil and pass judgement on someone's soul, but we are to use discernment about what things we allow to happen around us.

by tines 2y ago

giraffe_lady 2y ago

I suspect we're just from significantly different soteriological traditions. I'm greek orthodox and consider scripture to be the single most important, but not the only, means of understanding correct action. I don't place limits on god's grace or attempt to guess who will or won't be forgiven for what. The only sinless one is Christ himself, every one of the rest of us will plea for mercy and I pray we all receive it. Bonhoeffer's conundrum was that he perceived inaction to be as damning as any action available to him. I think there's room for disagreement about whether that was truly the case. But I find the difficulty in discerning righteous action in crisis relatable, and I appreciate how he engaged with it.

tines 2y ago
> I'm greek orthodox and consider scripture to be the single most important, but not the only, means of understanding correct action Interesting. Do you consider an action to be incorrect if it doesn't agree with scripture? Or can other things override scripture? > I don't place limits on god's grace or attempt to guess who will or won't be forgiven for what Do you place the limits that God himself placed? (Referring to Matthew 6:14-15 and James 2:13, assuming you believe Jesus' and James' words are God's word.) > Bonhoeffer's conundrum was that he perceived inaction to be as damning as any action available to him. I think there's room for disagreement about whether that was truly the case. But I find the difficulty in discerning righteous action in crisis relatable, and I appreciate how he engaged with it. I don't think we disagree that he was in a difficult situation. I'm simply arguing that he "gave up" and took the non-Christian way out of the core Christian dilemma, and worse, he's convincing other people that it was the Christian thing to do. Forgive me if I sound glib over such a serious matter, I just don't have a lot of time to edit my posts right now. (Also I'm not downvoting you.)
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  It's not that scripture says one thing and we can do another. It's that we need the guidance of tradition to know what scripture is saying to us, and how to apply it to our own lives. Scripture and orthodox tradition both are inconsistent about the compatibility of mercy and action to prevent an ongoing harm. We aren't to weigh the good and evil and pass judgement on someone's soul, but we are to use discernment about what things we allow to happen around us.