Unbelievable

[Eternal Entity]

Thinking about Heinlein's theory that wars are caused by internal population pressures. Wars are about obtaining lebensraum, resources, power, and prestige for one's own social group. Are ideologies then just one of the boundary-markers that identify various social groups, like ethnicity, economics, religion, or even just lines on a map?

If this is true, war is inevitable. (Heinlein thought so.) Rationality can't fix what's flawed in humanity; it can only attempt to control it. And the control measures may be as bad as the disease.

We could thus argue that the world and humans were created for this purpose. Not to solve or resolve, but to participate in war-games and through that fun thing, eventually show a winning strategy while also show the weaknesses in the strategies of the losers.

 

[Wrangler]

So, do you hate Tyson or simply dislike him due to his not believing whatever it is you believe?

LOL I don't let him live rent free in my mind just because we disagree. I dislike him because he is a pointy headed intellectual who doesn't see the hypocrisy of his position. Jesus was not too fond of hypocrites, as I recall.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Good points.

If the control measures are as bad as the disease, then God assigning that role to Caesar and his worldly government in this age makes Romans 13 understandable to me.

I don’t believe that Jesus and the apostles had in mind Christians living in nation X killing Christians living in nation Y to control the disease.

If one accepts Romans 13 as authoritative, then:

The state's use of lethal force against any wrongdoer is divinely sanctioned.
A Christian serving as a soldier in such a state is, in principle, acting as an agent of God's ordained institution.
Drawing a line at "Christians killing Christians" introduces a qualification that the text itself does not provide.

 

[Matthias]

If one accepts Romans 13 as authoritative, then:

The state's use of lethal force against any wrongdoer is divinely sanctioned.

Yes.

A Christian serving as a soldier in such a state is, in principle, acting as an agent of God's ordained institution.

“We [followers of Jesus] do not use the weapons of the world.” - Paul

Drawing a line at "Christians killing Christians" introduces a qualification that the text itself does not provide.

That’s right. The thought of followers of Jesus killing one another is far from the mind of Paul.

 

[Eternal Entity]

LOL I don't let him live rent free in my mind just because we disagree. I dislike him because he is a pointy headed intellectual who doesn't see the hypocrisy of his position. Jesus was not too fond of hypocrites, as I recall.

I see. You didn't answer my other concerns or provide links which qualify your claims about Tyson.
You do not " like" him because he is a "hypocrite" and Jesus did not like such people either.
If you were both drafted into a war, you would be on the same side yet - by the sound of it, should Tyson as a fellow soldier require your defence, you might likely not provide such defence dues to you concerns about his standing in regard to your own.

Or, would the fact that you fight a common enemy override such concerns?

 

[Eternal Entity]

Yes.

Regardless of what country is involved?

“We [followers of Jesus] do not use the weapons of the world.” - Paul

Thus any country which does so use such weapons, is not a "follower of Jesus"? Yet are still "divinely sanctioned?

That’s right. The thought of followers of Jesus killing one another is far from the mind of Paul.

Yet - apparently Paul thinks non-followers of Jesus are fair game? How does your argument fit in with Romans 13?

 

[Matthias]

Regardless of what country is involved?

Yes.

Thus any country which does so use such weapons, is not a "follower of Jesus"? Yet are still "divinely sanctioned?

Nero was the Emperor of the Roman Empire when Paul wrote Romans. While Paul was alluding to Nero - who by no stretch of the imagination was a follower of Jesus - he wasn't alluding only to Nero.

Yet - apparently Paul thinks non-followers of Jesus are fair game?

Fair game for what?

How does your argument fit in with Romans 13?

In short, Romans 13 is about the role of the state and the Christian attitude toward and relationship with the state.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Nero was the Emperor of the Roman Empire when Paul wrote Romans. While Paul was alluding to Nero - who by no stretch of the imagination was a follower of Jesus - he wasn't alluding only to Nero.

Romans 13:1–7 makes no mention of Nero, Rome, or any specific ruler. It speaks in general terms:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established."

Paul does not name Nero, does not qualify his statement based on the character of the ruler, and does not suggest that obedience is conditional on the ruler being just or Christian.

Fair game for what?

For whatever the winners decide re the fate of the losers

In short, Romans 13 is about the role of the state and the Christian attitude toward and relationship with the state.

Are Christians permitted to use the sword to kill non- believers?

 

[Matthias]

Romans 13:1–7 makes no mention of Nero, Rome, or any specific ruler. It speaks in general terms:


Paul does not name Nero, does not qualify his statement based on the character of the ruler, and does not suggest that obedience is conditional on the ruler being just or Christian.

For whatever the winners decide re the fate of the losers

The Book / Epistle of Romans was written by Paul to Christians who were living in Rome. The concern Paul is addressing is how they are to live under the government of the Roman Empire.

Are Christians permitted to use the sword to kill non- believers?

No.

 

[Eternal Entity]

No.

Thus, the idea then is that the state is endorsed to do the killing, on behalf of Christians

 

[Matthias]

Thus, the idea then is that the state is endorsed to do the killing, on behalf of Christians

As a minister of God, Paul writes.

 

[Eternal Entity]

As a minister of God, Paul writes.

Thus, the idea then is that the state is endorsed to do the killing, on behalf of God.

 

[Matthias]

Thus, the idea then is that the state is endorsed to do the killing, on behalf of God.

Yes. For the benefit of all mankind.

Just between you, me and the hat rack, do you think I’m promoting lawlessness?

 

[Eternal Entity]

Yes. For the benefit of all mankind.

Okay...

Just between you, me and the hat rack, do you think I’m promoting lawlessness?

I am not experiencing being human to judge but to understand.

So, to elaborate the context...We can return to what Tyson was articulating and show that Tyson (and the scientists and even states) are all Ministers of God whether they know it or not.
If the state is God's minister even when it doesn't know it (as Paul implies with Nero), then the same logic can extend:

Tyson - in articulating the escalation of violence, the role of belief systems, and the hope for rational coexistence — is describing the gameboard.
Scientists - in developing weapons, or in warning against their use — are playing their part within the design, whether they acknowledge the Designer or not.
States - in wielding the sword, restraining evil, and maintaining order — are functioning as God's agents, even when they act unjustly or ignorantly.

The irony Tyson (and the thread) has revealed:​

Tyson warns that belief systems cause war - and he's right.
But his own belief system (scientific rationalism) is also a move on the board.
He is describing the game while remaining inside it.

His hope - that rationality and conversation can end war - is not wrong.
It's just partial.
It's one of the ways God's ministers (knowingly or not) work within the game to restrain evil, expose folly, and point toward something better.

The war-game frame now fully integrated:​

The game exists - creation is designed as a contest.
The game has rules - moral order, consequence, choice.
The game has players - states, scientists, believers, unbelievers.
The game has an end - God will bring it to conclusion.
Everyone is a minister - whether they know it or not.
Some play faithfully - they serve God knowingly.
Some play ignorantly - they serve God without knowing it.
Some play rebelliously - they serve God's purposes against their will (like Assyria in Isaiah 10).

The question the thread now faces:​

If everyone is a minister of God — Tyson, scientists, states, believers, unbelievers — then:

What distinguishes faithful from unfaithful play?
Is the difference knowledge (knowing vs. not knowing)?
Or is it intention (serving God willingly vs. serving Him despite yourself)?
Or is it alignment (playing according to the Designer's revealed will)?

A possible answer:​

The difference is not whether God uses you - He uses everyone.

The difference is whether you know you are being used, and whether you choose to play His way.

Tyson plays well (describing the game, warning of danger).
Matthias plays faithfully (witnessing to Christ, refusing the sword).
ScottA plays with conviction (claiming direct knowledge).
Wrangler plays critically (rejecting hypocrisy).
Lambano plays fatalistically (accepting inevitability).
God uses them all.
But only some play with Him - knowingly, willingly, faithfully.

The Integrated War-Game Thesis​

1. Creation is a designed arena - not a failed experiment, but a genuine contest with real choices and real stakes.
2. The state bears the sword - as God's minister, whether it knows it or not.
3. Christians are called to a different move - serve, submit, but do not wield the sword against fellow image-bearers.
4. Scientists, states, believers, and unbelievers alike are all players on the board - each serving God's purposes, knowingly or unknowingly.
5. Tyson's critique is valid but partial - he sees the game, describes its dangers, and offers a rational path forward. That path is one move within the game - not an escape from it.
6. The call is not to win the game by force - but to play faithfully, trusting the Designer to bring the endgame.
7. Desmond Doss is the living example - in the game, serving the state, saving lives, refusing to kill. A faithful move within a violent board.
8. Everyone is a minister - the question is not whether you serve God's purposes, but whether you serve them knowingly, willingly, and faithfully.

Thoughts?

 

[Matthias]

Okay...

I am not experiencing being human to judge but to understand.

So, to elaborate the context...We can return to what Tyson was articulating and show that Tyson (and the scientists and even states) are all Ministers of God whether they know it or not.
If the state is God's minister even when it doesn't know it (as Paul implies with Nero), then the same logic can extend:

Tyson - in articulating the escalation of violence, the role of belief systems, and the hope for rational coexistence — is describing the gameboard.
Scientists - in developing weapons, or in warning against their use — are playing their part within the design, whether they acknowledge the Designer or not.
States - in wielding the sword, restraining evil, and maintaining order — are functioning as God's agents, even when they act unjustly or ignorantly.

The irony Tyson (and the thread) has revealed:​

Tyson warns that belief systems cause war - and he's right.
But his own belief system (scientific rationalism) is also a move on the board.
He is describing the game while remaining inside it.

His hope - that rationality and conversation can end war - is not wrong.
It's just partial.
It's one of the ways God's ministers (knowingly or not) work within the game to restrain evil, expose folly, and point toward something better.

The war-game frame now fully integrated:​

The game exists - creation is designed as a contest.
The game has rules - moral order, consequence, choice.
The game has players - states, scientists, believers, unbelievers.
The game has an end - God will bring it to conclusion.
Everyone is a minister - whether they know it or not.
Some play faithfully - they serve God knowingly.
Some play ignorantly - they serve God without knowing it.
Some play rebelliously - they serve God's purposes against their will (like Assyria in Isaiah 10).

The question the thread now faces:​

If everyone is a minister of God — Tyson, scientists, states, believers, unbelievers — then:

What distinguishes faithful from unfaithful play?
Is the difference knowledge (knowing vs. not knowing)?
Or is it intention (serving God willingly vs. serving Him despite yourself)?
Or is it alignment (playing according to the Designer's revealed will)?

A possible answer:​

The difference is not whether God uses you - He uses everyone.

The difference is whether you know you are being used, and whether you choose to play His way.

Tyson plays well (describing the game, warning of danger).
Matthias plays faithfully (witnessing to Christ, refusing the sword).
ScottA plays with conviction (claiming direct knowledge).
Wrangler plays critically (rejecting hypocrisy).
Lambano plays fatalistically (accepting inevitability).
God uses them all.
But only some play with Him - knowingly, willingly, faithfully.

The Integrated War-Game Thesis​

1. Creation is a designed arena - not a failed experiment, but a genuine contest with real choices and real stakes.
2. The state bears the sword - as God's minister, whether it knows it or not.
3. Christians are called to a different move - serve, submit, but do not wield the sword against fellow image-bearers.
4. Scientists, states, believers, and unbelievers alike are all players on the board - each serving God's purposes, knowingly or unknowingly.
5. Tyson's critique is valid but partial - he sees the game, describes its dangers, and offers a rational path forward. That path is one move within the game - not an escape from it.
6. The call is not to win the game by force - but to play faithfully, trusting the Designer to bring the endgame.
7. Desmond Doss is the living example - in the game, serving the state, saving lives, refusing to kill. A faithful move within a violent board.
8. Everyone is a minister - the question is not whether you serve God's purposes, but whether you serve them knowingly, willingly, and faithfully.

Thoughts?

I typically don’t read / reply to long posts. I’m here for casual conversation.

I will say though that I don’t believe everyone is a minister of God.

 

[Eternal Entity]

I typically don’t read / reply to long posts. I’m here for casual conversation.

I prefer indepth.

I will say though that I don’t believe everyone is a minister of God.

Name one.

 

[Matthias]

I prefer indepth.

That’s fine.

Name one.

You, for example.

 

[Eternal Entity]

You, for example.

In context of the "long post" Everyone is a minister - whether they know it or not.

This, because "GOD"
You are free to think otherwise. It matters not.

 

[Matthias]

In context of the "long post" Everyone is a minister - whether they know it or not.

This, because "GOD"
You are free to think otherwise. It matters not.

If it doesn’t matter then why are we talking about it?

 

[Eternal Entity]

If it doesn’t matter then why are we talking about it?

We are not. I've said my piece in the long post. It stands. If you're not interested in engaging with it, that's your choice — but I'm not going to defend it in fragments against objections it already addresses. We see the board differently. That's okay.