Oddbean

Good questions. So the root meaning is basically "dominion" which ties back to Genesis. As for your second question about coercion, that is a bit more complicated. The simple answer is that there are plenty of just ways a person may attain authority and rule. That someone would attain authority isn't in itself wrong but, again, an inevitability. I also should say that coercion once someone is IN authority is baked into the pie. It is not a matter of if they will be coercive but how they will be coercive. Or, put another way, to what end. For example, I am coercive with my children—I will discipline them if they are rebellious to my authority—but my coercion is aimed in the direction of them being self-disciplined, respectful, and responsible individuals who are not mastered by their emotions and impulses and sins but rather learn how to submit themselves in righteousness to God. My authority as a father is to love them enough to teach them to obey all that God has commanded. That involves coercion. On the flip side, If I were a tyrannical father I would still have authority over them because of my "governing office" as father but my rule would be using coercion for MY OWN gain, not my children's gain. This, in principle, is true of magisterial rulers. God calls rulers to love their people and place. To use coercion in righteous ways for the benefit and flourishing of the people. You specifically asked about attaining power through coercive means. On that note, and this is a harder reality to grapple with, God allows, for his purposes, selfish and evil men to do such things. Just as men can come to power through just means, so they can through unjust means. God is infinitely wise and we often do not understand why he allows all that he does. But, as was stated before, sometimes it is to discipline an unruly peoples. To discipline and rebuke in order to call them back into righteous submission to Christ. Pardon the novel I wrote in response here. Does all that make sense?

I'll add one more thing, that despite God using unjust and tyrannical rulers for his good purposes, it is equally true that we are to resist unjust rulers and unjust coercion. John Calvin considered governing officials who betray their office to essentially be reduced to private persons, what's more, mere "brigands" and "criminals". We are to respect the office but rebel against the office holder if that man rules unjustly.

I love the novel, keep 'em coming! Arguably, if the child is nasty, he is initiating harm, and thus starting aggression. So you have the right to defend and put an end to the violence, including by using violence. Applying defensive force is not coercion. Did you ever read A Lodging of Wayfaring Men? There are fascinating dialogs about the history of religious thought, it is quite related to our conversation, and far more eloquent than my blabbering. Specifically Appendix B where Philip speaks with Steven. https://podcastindex.org/podcast/531078?episode=26839193639

Agreed on the importance to address aggression, though I would also say that righteous authority, especially in the home, is not only enforced to stem aggression but also to shape and mold the heart of the child. Modern people have developed a hatred/distrust/resistance to all authority structures but authority is both inevitable and essential. There will always be people in authority over other people—in the home, in the workplace, in the church, and in government—and part of my job is to teach my children what just authority looks like and what right submission to just authority looks like. Likewise, I am to point to unjust authority and help them navigate how to submit to the office said ruler holds while righteously resisting or rejecting the injustice being enacted by the occupant of that office. If my children do not learn how to submit to the authority of someone who loves them, they will not have the tools to honor God in circumstances where authorities that do not love them attempt their compliance/subjugation. I am not familiar with the book. Thanks for the recommendation!

I love it when smart and in depth conversation spawns under notes, it's like a portal to another rabbit hole. nostr:nevent1qqsgvqqu27edctrzp6ch0eeptjlzgc04zy4ke0e5pn6myd59sfaavespzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczypnkll4zasc5y65sd4met4lt4c46teslpw06s9vetd9zn8wssh23qqcyqqqqqqgd7dmam

If you allow reactions to what's been said, chances are there will be knowledge there and sometimes wisdom too 🙂 Otherwise all people do is notify others, and brains will never be challenged by other brains to go places it could not end up (or ever find) by itself.

Regarding god allows evil: My theory is that allowing "evil" is the basis of giving choice, wouldn't make much sense as a god to say: "Choose whatever you want, but I'll only allow good choices". Opening up a second topic: God influencing the "evil" freedom by answering prayers: Personally I believe that god doesn't instantly answer/resolve typical askforhelp prayers, because it would contradict the freedom to choose evil. P.S. I am no christian, but my philosophy has a lot of parallels with christianity.

I agree that human agency is a factor in the allowance of evil, though I draw distinction in thinking that human choice is the primary reason for God allowing evil. The reasons for the allowance of evil on the part of a just, holy, and loving God are going to vary—sometimes it is for disciplinary purposes (like a father would discipline the son in whom he loves), sometimes it is allowing an unruly and rebellious people to have exactly what they want and be faced with the consequences (Example: We don't want to submit to the good design for sex as being between one man and one woman in marriage and instead give God the middle finger by fornicating outside of marriage and producing pornography and incentivizing adultery and inventing a spectrum of gender identities and castrating young children through surgery and puberty blockers—all of which is disastrous long-term for the stability and health of any civilization, and God simply says "you want that, sure, have at it", allowing people to simply walk headlong into the natural consequences that inevitably come as a result of their rebellion.) Sometimes the allowance of evil is to display his glory in overcoming that evil. And I'm sure there are many other reasons God in his wisdom has that we in our finitude cannot fathom. That is partly where faith comes in—not blind faith, mind you, but steadfast trust that God is good even when things are bad.

I would submit it is not coercive to have dominion over your own house. That one's children are in effect "Trapped" under your care is a function of reality. For example If I take someone up in a hot air balloon that I own. I have every right to remove them from my property if they do not follow my rules. However, I may not throw them out of my balloon 1000meters in the air, that would be murder. The physical reality is your children's upbringing is that same hot air balloon. You must safely ferry them to a place where releasing them from your property would not kill them. You are not "Coercing" them to stay on your property (and thus abiding by your rules) you are preventing their demise at the hands of the physical reality of the world. On the Broader point, government is a mental game we play with each other. We all pretend that we are, in some ethereal way in the same "group" as everyone in our geographical vicinity. That is not a physical reality. That is simply something people like to do. Other people do not like to play that mental game. It is only when the mental game of "I'm the boss and you have to do what I say" meets the physical reality of extortion(taxes), kidnapping(arrests), and murder(the death penalty) that this game becomes not so fun. And to invoke the metaphysical as some sort of justification for the behavior of those not participating in an illusory mental game is a bit myopic. God is my ruler not because of some vote, appointment or some other contrivance. God rules because God created the physical reality I dwell within and the rules of reality itself. The words of men are simply inconsequential to the will of God because it physically can't be any other way.

I suppose you could say they are trapped haha, but I think a healthier framing is that they are given by God and entrusted to my care as a parent. And my argument is that coercion is a natural part of taking dominion. Maybe a helpful way of distinguishing what I mean is that righteous coercion is a tool of just dominion while unrighteous coercion is a weapon for unjust domination. Government (the magistrate) is more than a shared illusion though, because people have to order themselves in a civil society somehow and Scripture is pretty clear that the magistrate is a part of God's intended order. And forgive me if I have not been clear, I am not trying to invoke God to justify the actions of unjust rulers. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that God intentionally created a world in which there are various ranks of authority and rule and that the magistrate isn't in itself bad, illusory, or even a "necessary evil" that we simply have to put up with, but rather when godly men rule in the fear of the Lord the magistrate is doing what it ought to do—punish the wrongdoer, elevate the righteous, protect property rights. When the magistrate becomes the thing it is supposed to protect against (extortionists, thieves, murderers, etc) then it is right and just for the people to resist such tyranny.

Just to define a term (because my pedantic nature recoils at the phrase "Righteous coercion") Coercion: 1. The act or practice of coercing. 2. Power or ability to coerce. 3. The act or process of coercing. 4. The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. “Coactus volui” (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion. 5. Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing. 6. Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will. 7. A specific instance of coercing. 8. Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type. 9. Using force to cause something to occur. As far as my moral understanding none of these definitions can be performed righteously. What I think you are refering to as coercion may very well be defined as just ownership or property rights. When one is said to "own" something that is to say they have authoritative control of the use, maintenance, and right to exchange. Your dominion is your property. (God's dominion is everthing and God is the Progenator) Within one's property rule enforcement is not coercion because those on your property have been invited and thus agree to those rules. One cannot agree to coercion. When it comes to government, the only way one might say you "Agree to the rules" of citizenship, is to be under the illusion that you chose the government. That IS an illusion. You may be complicit in the government's actions but you have not chosen anything. This lack of free will to choose IS coercion regardless of perceptions of divinity. The scriptures are inspired by God and written by men. In so doing, they are limited by man's understanding of societal structure and dominion. It could very well be that when a polity is made of wicked men, they make a wicked government. But it is not at all clear to me, that individuals working in their own endeavors freely and collaboratively exchanging their goods and services, need a governance structure outside of their moral adherence to God's will. There is no place for interference from the state even if it could somehow act righteously (again I am unsure how taking money without permission can be righteous given the commandment expressly forbidding it.) That claim to Righteous coercion IS the illusion to which I was referring. I hope that clarifies where I seem to diverge with your view point. Peace and love, Brother.