Theology III

[Rían]

Exactly. Interesting story! One of the best switcharoos in history, when Haman was sucking up to the king for recognition for himself, and the king actually meant it for Mordecai!


King: "Oh, that sounds great! Go ahead and do it for Mordecai!"

Haman: *Biggest jaw drop in history*


Can you just picture the enthusiasm with which Haman said his little line praising Mordecai, as he led the parade thru the streets?


Also, I'd say that the cities of refuge would support the idea of self-defense being a different thing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I disagree - these Jews are acting as private citizens, defending themselves against a royal writ that authorized their extermination. They aren't acting as part of the polity, because this is Persia, not Israel.

They're banding together in defiance of the law of their land because they perceive themselves as a "seperate nation", like the folks at Ruby Ridge. They're mounting an insurrection. It may be perceived as "self-defense" but it's war, albeit small scale. It's more like Denmark Vesey than someone mugged in a park.

I'll also point out that there's reason to believe that the New Testament counted such 'self-defence' among the things replaced by the "Good News."

[Count Comfect]

It's not an insurrection - it is approved of by the authorities (including the King). Just because the people are acting in concert does not mean that it must be a war.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I'll also point out that there's reason to believe that the New Testament counted such 'self-defence' among the things replaced by the "Good News."

In Luke chapter 3, some soldiers asked Jesus what they should do, and he didn't say to stop being soldiers:

Luke 3:14
Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In Luke chapter 3, some soldiers asked Jesus what they should do, and he didn't say to stop being soldiers:

Well, first of all, that wasn't Jesus.

Second, it depends on your translation whether John the Baptist says "Don't extort money" or "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." "Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages." "Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." "Smite ye wrongfully no man, neither make ye false challenge, and be ye satisfied with your wages ". He may have assumed (and perhaps incorrectly) that if he was telling people how to be better people he didn't have to review the whole 10 commandments. He didn't tell anyone else they couldn't covet their neighbor's ass, but you assume those rules are current until God (as Jesus) said otherwise.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian - I think you'll find if you study medieval views of witchcraft that you'll find a lot of frauds and powerplays.

Speaking of which, I've been picking at Montague Summers "History of Witchcraft"; it's pretty interesting stuff, so far.

As he's the king who made Christianity a state religion for the first time in history, I don't see his crowning as an arbitrary date. I think that that was only the second date I checked when looking at the Medieval Era, because it seemed so logical.

He didn't make it a state religion, did he? As I recall, he only legalised it, whereas his successor Constantius made it the state religion.

I don't care for millenialism, myself, but I must admit that what you propose is an interesting twist on it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief -

Look into James I more. He was quite centrist, actually. His persecution of "Puritans" was primarily directed only at those who desired to abolish episcopacy entirely, a small minority of the church. He actually fostered a broad Calvinist consensus in England, along the lines of what would have been called "Puritan" under either Elizabeth I or Charles I.

The 39 Articles support Calvinism, at least to an extent:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Misogynistic, yes (after all, why were there warlock scares?).

The general belief was that the covens were headed by male witches, acting in persona Satanis.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian - I think you'll find if you study medieval views of witchcraft that you'll find a lot of frauds and powerplays.

Speaking of which, I've been picking at Montague Summers "History of Witchcraft"; it's pretty interesting stuff, so far.

As he's the king who made Christianity a state religion for the first time in history, I don't see his crowning as an arbitrary date. I think that that was only the second date I checked when looking at the Medieval Era, because it seemed so logical.

He didn't make it a state religion, did he? As I recall, he only legalised it, whereas his successor Constantius made it the state religion.

I don't care for millenialism, myself, but I must admit that what you propose is an interesting twist on it; that's like the exact opposite of most interpretations of the Middle Ages that I hear from Revelation. Good on you for that.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The general belief was that the covens were headed by male witches, acting in persona Satanis.

Since Gardnerian times, not in the middle ages or during the burning times.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

He didn't make it a state religion, did he? As I recall, he only legalised it, whereas his successor Constantius made it the state religion.

*Researches it.* Hmm. Looks like it was Theodosius the First. Constantine was the first Christian emperor, though, so he still was the initiator of an era.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I don't care for millenialism, myself, but I must admit that what you propose is an interesting twist on it; that's like the exact opposite of most interpretations of the Middle Ages that I hear from Revelation. Good on you for that.

It took being wowed by a lot of scripture and history connections before my mind was open enough to actually question such basic modern perspectives as government "by the people, for the people," and to realize that one "by God, for God," makes more sense. Government "by the people, for the people" is an idea that we accept when very young as valid, and in school we all learn the arguments in favor of it and the reasoning on which it stands. Most of us never seriously consider the other side.

I'm presently somewhat ambivalent as to whether monarchy or democracy is better, for as I see it, either the majority or a king could serve God faithfully and be used by God to rule well. But I know your view is different, and I'm interested now in hearing why you think monarchy is better than democracy.

This probably isn't a good thread for that, though. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your explaining this to me in a political thread or over email.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Since Gardnerian times, not in the middle ages or during the burning times.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Gardner didn't even claim to have been 'initiated' until 1939. His foundational book 'Witchcraft Today' wasn't published till 1954. Montague Summers, whom I referenced a moment ago, writes of the male Devil of the witches coven in the History of Witchcraft, published in 1928. He derives this from quotes from ancient texts; I don't have the text in front of me, but I believe they were 16th or 17th century.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This probably isn't a good thread for that, though. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your explaining this to me in a political thread or over email.

I'd like to take you up on that, but I simply haven't the time for the next three weeks.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Montague Summers, whom I referenced a moment ago, writes of the male Devil of the witches coven in the History of Witchcraft, published in 1928. He derives this from quotes from ancient texts; I don't have the text in front of me, but I believe they were 16th or 17th century.

All due respect to Mr. Summers, I don't find his arguments convincing. I'm sure there were people who believed that no woman/witch could so much as hex a goat without male assistance, and they probably wrote that down. But the body of evidence of who was prosecuted reveals a real preference for females, and females as far down the social ladder as practical. There were males prosecuted, as well as rich people and children, but the majority were old, poor, and female. Historians continue to refine our understanding of this period, but I haven't seen evidence yet that even 'coven' was an essential ingredient in most trials. Gardnerian witchcraft, on the other hand, emphasises the "need for the male principle", as it were.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'd like to take you up on that, but I simply haven't the time for the next three weeks.

Well, whenever you have time .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, first of all, that wasn't Jesus.

Argh - postus hastus - my bad! Little J, not big J

(altho big J had quite a high opinion of little J!)

Second, it depends on your translation whether John the Baptist says "Don't extort money" or "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." "Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages." "Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." "Smite ye wrongfully no man, neither make ye false challenge, and be ye satisfied with your wages ".

Well, if you want to use translations that use English words that were used in different ways than they are today, then you'll have to be prepared to understand the use of the word at the time it was translated. I prefer using the modern translations, using English as we currently use it, and translating directly from the original language.

He may have assumed (and perhaps incorrectly) that if he was telling people how to be better people he didn't have to review the whole 10 commandments. He didn't tell anyone else they couldn't covet their neighbor's ass, but you assume those rules are current until God (as Jesus) said otherwise.

But the issue is NOT whether the commandments are still in place (and there's a lot more than 10, btw!) It's whether the "kill" in the 6th commandment includes things like self-defense and killing as a representative of the state, whether in war or court judgement. And I think, along with the Count, that it's pretty evident that it does NOT include these things, esp. given things like how God decrees us to carry out capital punishment for certain crimes.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The book of Esther, dear BJ.

"But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives..."

But does it say or imply anywhere that god saw this kind of "murder in self defense" as okay, or is Esther simply an account of something that happened?

[Rían]

That's why I brought up the cities of refuge - God commanded that several cities be established for people that killed accidentally - they were allowed to live safely there. I remember things about self-defense, too - there's discussions about how to determine this - but don't have a reference right now. I'll go dig 'em up if no one else comes up with them soon.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But does it say or imply anywhere that god saw this kind of "murder in self defense" as okay, or is Esther simply an account of something that happened?

"[27] The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year;
[28] And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed."

Sounds approved to me. No, there is not a sentence that says "God saw, and it was good," but the above, along with the inclusion of Esther as a book of the Bible, makes it quite clear that this is not something to be condemned.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Number 35

[22] But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
[23] Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
[24] Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:
[25] And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
...
[31] Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

This is the story of the cities of refuge. I would feel comfortable putting self-defense under the nexus between 22 or 31 (striking without lying in wait/taking the life of a murderer).