Ship of Fools: Whence rebellion?

Thread: Whence rebellion? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026035

Posted by loggats (# 17643) on :

I wondered what you guys thought about rebellion - that essential human quality of assertive control. Must be 'submit' to God in some way as Christians? What does that mean for our own sense of self and integrity?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
I wondered what you guys thought about rebellion - that essential human quality of assertive control. Must be 'submit' to God in some way as Christians? What does that mean for our own sense of self and integrity?

You've got this backward.

Your so-called "essential human quality of assertive control" is not essential at all, is not part of man's nature. It is part of humankind's second nature, acquired at the Fall.

This rebellion is what man and woman did when they disobeyed God's commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

However... to submit to God is, almost always, to rebel against human authority. So it's win-win.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Your so-called "essential human quality of assertive control" is not essential at all, is not part of man's nature. It is part of humankind's second nature, acquired at the Fall.

This rebellion is what man and woman did when they disobeyed God's commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I'm not sure how that would square with evolution in that our animal ancestry clearly shows that a need ffor assertive control' is part of our inherited nature and was present in the animal kingdom long before humanity. Some Rabbis argued that the evil inclination (which they defined to include the need to assert and control) had been placed there by God and was essential for humans to be creatures capable of moral choice and was also 'good', because without it, humans wouldn't be creative and developed the sciences etc. They also pointed out that in the command to love God with our heart, the Hebrew for heart is in the form with two beths meaning that we should love God with both our good and evil inclinations. Denying aspects of our nature can be unhealthy at best and dangerous at worst - which isn't to say that we can or should indulge our drives or instincts, but as the French proverb says: When we deny the natural, it comes back at a gallop.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I'm not sure how that would square with evolution in that our animal ancestry clearly shows that a need for assertive control' is part of our inherited nature and was present in the animal kingdom long before humanity.

Not all animals are the same.

Humans are gregarious; we live in groups and we do not survive long in isolation. It stands to reason that not everyone can dominate any given group. There is a need for someone to assert control, but there is an equal need for the rest of the group to accept that leadership, and co-operate with it.

In other words, it is in the interests of human society for us all to co-operate with other people being in charge, as long as the right people are chosen. When the wrong people are chosen, all sorts of evils occur, but this is not because everyone wants to lead; what everyone actually wants is for the right person to lead.

In relation to our faith, we want God to lead, and we want anyone working on his behalf to do as he says; to serve his people rather than seeking personal power or status. Nobody actually gets to have personal power; it all belongs to God.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

Of course not all animals are the same. Nor obviously can all animals or humans lead their society, pack etc. The need for 'assertive control' however doesn't begin and end with group leadership. It can included control or manipulation of the immediate environment or of one's own body for example, and the question spoke about rebellion generally and 'we as Christians', rather than leadership specifically.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I question 'the essential human quality of assertive control'. We like to think that we're in control. To some extent, we gain control of our bodies and minds through infancy and childhood, although we may lose this again in old age. Unless we have a position of power in the community, we have very little assertive control. We might put our views forward, but we're constantly dancing the metaphorical tango with those we live, work or socialise with, unless they're doormats.

Rebellion speaks more of an attempt to speak or act against the tide of opinion, perhaps for the sake of it, rather than of assertive control.

Autonomy, in its sense of freedom of the will, must itself be exercised in order to yield to God. A fear of losing our identity may hold us back, but in practice submission to God allows our true sense of self and integrity to be fully realised.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Rebellion is the rejection of a human authority that has become tyrannical. As any exercise of power tends to become, due to fallen or imperfect human nature, unless constantly checked and submitted to God's will.

Best wishes,

Russ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0