The Witnesses are often condemned for refusing blood transfusions and "permitting" their children to die. Such a religious position is untenable, opponents of JWs will argue. Yet such ones should reflect on the example of Abraham and Isaac before they castigate Jehovah's people.
The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard draws our attention to the lesson we can learn from the example of Isaac and Abraham when he discusses the "teleological suspension of the ethical." Abraham, Kierkegaard contends, teleologically suspended the ethical when he showed himself willing to sacrifice a son that he loved "more dearly than himself." As Kierkegaard writes:
"By his [Abraham's] act he overstepped the ethical entirely and possessed a higher telos outside of it, in relation to which he suspended the former . . . Why then did Abraham do it? For God's sake, and (in complete identity with this) for his own sake. He did it for God's sake because God required this proof of his faith; for his own sake he did it in order that he might furnish proof. The unity of these two points of view is perfectly expressed by the word which has always been used to characterize this situation: it is a trial, a temptation (Fristelse)."
In a case like that of Abraham there is a fine line between obedience to the Divine will and attempted murder.
In the absence of a direct command from God - in other words if Abraham made his decision based upon what he had surmised or speculated that Jehovah might want, but didn't specifically state, he would have crossed that line. Instead of going down in history as an outstanding example of faith, he would have been remembered as a lunatic and murderer.
In regard to the blood issue, if a child of yours died as a direct result of your actions and Jehovah at some future date were to ask you, "Why have you down this thing?" how would you answer? Could you truthfully and unflinchingly say, "Because You have commanded it?"
Can you produce such a Divine command for my benefit? I would be most interested in your reply.
Weee, duns. A Jaydub apologist quoting philosophers left and right, and actually able to spell those nasty un-English words. I'm..err...well, not impressed, but maybe a tiny bit surprised.
On the other hand, you aren't bringing up anything particularly original here. JWs do think refusing blood is a test of faith, yes. We know that. We don't need to exhume old Søren to get such a revelation. Big deal. And your point is?
"Teleological suspension of the ethical" is usually shortened in everyday language to "the end justifies the means".
The interesting question is, what is the right "end"? And do the means actually take us there?
Abraham was a nut, a pimp, an attempted murderer, and so on. His father and ancestors did not worship Y. So he probably found this new god while experimenting with peyote. He obtains money by his wife´s relations with other men. This wife is his sister. Being a rich man, he sends one of his sons with precarious supplies to the desert. Has offspring with at least three different women but aknowledges only one son. He attempts to murder Sara´s son when he realizes Isaac was not his son, but conceived after Y´s visit to his sister/wife. His god proves that he cannot read mankind's heart by testing Abraham.
JRP If I wanted your opinion, I would beat it out of you (seen in a bumper sticker)
Greetings Dunnscot Congratulations on your use of Kierkegaard in the incident involving Abraham and Isaac. Such commentary by this philosopher and theologian is very helpful in solving knotty theological problems. The society many years ago published an article on Kierkegaard which discussed his vehement condemnation of Christendom. His life was short and tragic but he has left a powerful legacy for Christians in their ministry and worship. Itis pleasing to see that you have a love for philosophy and it can be useful in explaining the unexplainable.
Recently the Society in its wisdom used a concept of causality to explain by means of a diagram the fact of creation. This was discussed in a recent study article on Creation.
Recently the Society in its wisdom used a concept of causality to explain by means of a diagram the fact of creation. This was discussed in a recent study article on Creation.
A concept of - causality! And a diagram no less! That's...that's...revolutionary! Again, the Brooklyn think tank leaves philosophers and biologists world-wide in awe. Causality! It was right in front of our eyes and we couldn't see it.
Expletives fail me.
Please tell me that
a) you're lampooning this dunsscot guy and I don't get it because I haven't seen your previous postings and I cannot hear your chuckling via the Internet, or b) you are in fact "dunsscot" applauding himself by means of a second alias (Stafford style) and we can expect multitudes of co-dunsies to appear within the coming weeks, or c) this is the first sign of a "teaser campaign" for one of those doctorate mills selling philosophy degrees from "renowned, but unaccredited universities" for just 300USD, d) your cat peed on your keyboard, causing (yow! efficient causality!) random short-circuits and a nonsensical posting on this board.
did jesus not teach us of men who ate the temple food. in violation of the law. did he see these men as sinners who would suffer for the violation? no. he taught us that the LAW was to serve men not men to serve the law. it was ok to eat the food because the food was necessary. with out the food thay would have starved and died.
if any one sees a difference with these two issues plese post it so i might come to understand.
the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.
