To AlanF
AlanF:
To Dunsscot:
AF: Abraham's actions were nothing of the kind. Since for true believers, whatever God says is ethical, is ethical, Abraham made no suspension of his ethics -- he changed his ethics due to God's command, just as surely as worshipers of Jehovah changed their ethics when they went from being under Jewish Law to being under Christian principles.:
DS: I will your address your voluntarist understanding of God as we progress.
AF: Readers will see that you do not.
DS: I did address it. But I may have to provide an expanded explanation for you to successfully process my previously written observations.
DS: For now I'll just say that I think there is a sense in which Abraham did indeed suspend the ethical to obey God. True, he did not violate any ethical laws to fulfill the divine directive concerning His Son. But my point is that Abraham suspended what seemed ethical for a higher telos.
AF: He didn't merely suspend it -- he substituted another for it. I pointed this out but you never address it.:
Abraham, I think, made an antisocial gesture that SEEMED unethical to outsiders. He did not "substitute" the ethical, but placed what men commonly viewed as ethical in a suspended state. Conversely, Kierkegaard also indicates that God's Will remained God's Will--even when He (God) told Abraham to slaughter his only-begotten Son. Therefore, onlookers could have thought he was DISOBEYING God when he as good as offered up Isaac.
DS: Certain scholars have pointed out that Kierkegaard meant Abraham performed what seemed to be an antisocial gesture in order to fulfill a religious commitment. Kierkegaard explicitly writes that Abraham showed himself willing to offer up Isaac for God and himself.
AF: I wish you'd quit prattling on about Kierkegaard and such wordly philosophers. Just state what you believe and why.
DS: First, I am not sure what I believe in this case. As I mentioned, I'm in process regarding this issue. Secondly, the apostle Paul asked, 'what do we have that we did not receive?' I thus give props to all those thinkers who preceded me. Sir Isaac Newton, whatever he meant by it, noted that if he could see any further than his contemporaries, it was because he stood upon the shoulders of giants.
DS: The command to offer up Isaac was not necessarily unethical. But if God would have allowed Abraham to go through with slaughtering His Son, that act could have been construed--indeed, may have been!--unjust.
AF: Why would it have been unjust? Isn't it true that JWs believe that the Bible teaches that the God-Abraham-Isaac story is an illustration and forerunner of what God actually did with his own Son? If the larger reality was just, then how could the smaller illustration of it -- even though uncompleted -- be unjust?
DS: In the pentateuchal account, God is clearly trying or testing Abraham (Genesis 22:1), and He prevents Abraham from murdering his OWN Son. In the NT telling of the divine Heilsgeschichte, it is not God who slaughters His Son, but the seed of Satan. God permits the Messiah to be crushed (Isaiah 53:10). But He does not "crush" or "make him sick" or even mortify him personally.
DS: and a modern JWs refusal to take blood. I even stated that I think blood tranfusions should be a matter of conscience, period.
:: You are to be commended for this stand. It could get you DA'd, you know.
DS: That's a consequence one has to live with for now. What happened to those persons who dared to defy wicked King Zedekiah or King Joash? I think you well know the answer to this question.
AF: Of course, and so I think you understand my point: the Governing Body is no different from those wicked kings, in that they all demand obededience to their persons over obedience to God, and punish those who obey God first.
DS: I understand your point, and disagree with it.
AF: But there is a big difference in the situations. According to the Bible, the Israelite nation was a special possession of God, not because of anything they themselves did, but because of God's ancient promise to Abraham. Indeed, if God was to fulfill his promise, he had no choice but to put up with a certain amount of Jewish misbehavior.
DS: God and Christ also put up with much Christian misbehavior in the first century (Rev 2-3).
AF: On the other hand, JW leaders claim to be in their positions not because of a promise made to one of their ancestors, but because JW (more properly, Bible Student) leaders from roughly 1880 to 1919 were so superior in every important way to other Christians that God selected them as his special earthly spokesmen.
DS: I do not think that your statement aptly describes the attitude of JW leadership. The Proclaimers book shows that other groups had a measure of the truth besides the Bible Students. But Russell thought that JWs were able to piece more of the biblical puzzle together through God's spirit. Russell and other men at that time believed that God's favor shone on them because of the scriptural understanding they had acquired. However, Russell was not haughty about the gems of truth available to the Bible Students at that time. I think the men presently serving on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses also recognize that they are not a part of "God's Organization" because of what they have done. All sacred privileges flow from God's undeserved kindness and mercy. The truth emanating from Jehovah's holy mountain serves as evidence of God's blessing. It does not mean that we Witnesses are superior to anyone else.
AF: Indeed, they claim that in 1919 God appointed them "over all Christ's belongings".
DS: But what you're failing to mention is that the modern-day organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is viewed as a continuation of the first century arrangement. JWs do not simply contend that God appointed them ex nihilo or ex vacuo.
AF: Thus, a wicked Israelite king could have done nothing to negate his claim that his nation was God's special possession, but wicked JW leaders prove by their wicked actions that their claim of special appointment as God's spokesmen, as being heads over "God's people", as having special direction from God, and many other claims, are false. Indeed, since such leaders have over time completely determined the nature of the JW religion, their wicked actions prove that JWs are not "God's special people" at all, since JWs for the most part have voluntarily gone along with and given physical support to such actions.:
DS: I agree, in principle, with your statements about the Jews and their claim to divine favor. But how do you deal with the "wicked" leaders talked about in the NT? Am I to believe that the presence of "wicked" leaders" in the first century church prove that Christianity is false? Do you also contend that Christians in the first century were not God's people either, because of their "wicked" actions?
DS::: And to answer Jerry's question, if a Witness examines Scripture (thus listening to qol YHWH) and thinks that he or she can in all good conscience take blood or allow his or her child to have blood, then by all means, they should listen to their internal witness-bearer and the voice of YHWH.
AF:: Good! Why then, do you follow and give verbal support to men who declare wicked those who do exactly as you suggest? Here is an example of wicked men declaring the righteous one wicked.
DS: You want to construe life in terms of strict binary oppositions.
AF: Not at all. But in this situation the issue is a life and death matter, and is so clear that it most certainly is a binary proposition: the position of the GB is right, or it is wrong. Either taking a blood transfusion violates God's law, or it does not. There is no in-between.
DS: So do you feel the same way about abortions? Is abortion either right or wrong? Alternatively, do you think that abortion is a conscience matter? Do you think a woman has the right to make such decisions that affect her corpus?
DS: The fact of the matter is that while you want to say the WT leaders enforcing the "blood policy" are wicked and responsible for the death of innocent people, you are wrong to insist that one who commits a wicked deed or even wicked deeds is in fact wicked himself or herself. What is more, many doctrines are a matter of life and death. What about joining the military? Is that not a matter of life-and-death? Do you think its okay to join the army or navy? What about smoking? Is it alright to puff on "cancer sticks"?
: Wicked men declare the righteous wicked,
AF: This is not a proposition that I have set up -- it is one that your precious Bible has set up: "anyone pronouncing the righteous one wicked [is] ... something detestable to Jehovah." (Proverbs 17:15) Someone "detestable to Jehovah" is by definition wicked. Thus, my statement is strictly Bible-based.
DS: I think you're overlooking the fact that YHWH is a reasonable God. You cannot take such biblical statements at face value. James 3:17 says that the wisdom from above is, among other things, EPIEIKHS. Thucydides utilizes the Greek word EPIEIKHS to describe men who listen to reason. The Insight book also notes that the word indicates that a "reasonable" person does not go by the letter of the law.
I submit that God is reasonable and yielding in His actions. He does not see the world in terms of binary opposites, but recognizes that there are times when the "spirit" of the law must be followed.
To illustrate what I mean, look at Leviticus 20:10. According to that passage, an adulterer lying with an adulteress shall "surely" be put to death. Why then was David not put to death? Why did God allow both David and Bathsheba to live? Evidently, God must be reasonable in all of His affairs (EPIEIKHS).
: while righteous men do no such thing.
AF: A righteous man who declares the righteous wicked immediate becomes wicked -- according to the Bible. You don't like it? Argue with the Bible, not me.
DS: I think you are wrong, as the example of David shows. In the case of David, we have a righteous man who commits a wicked act. He does not by virtue of that act become wicked, anymore than a person who commits a crime becomes a criminal when he or she engages in the said crime.
: Life is not quite that way. Just as a righteous person can borrow money and not pay it back or lie and deceive, he or she is also capable of declaring the righteous one wicked.
AF We're not talking about capabilities. We're talking about accomplished acts. We're talking about how the Bible states God views someone who has declared the righteous one wicked.
DS: I am trying to help you to see, however, that you cannot rightly conclude that ANYONE declaring the righteous wicked becomes or is wicked. Do you apply this same line of reasoning to Proverbs 22:6? Do you think that if a child departs from the way he should go when he is older that a parent did not do what he or she was supposed to do? When you read Psalm 37:21, do you conclude that anyone borrowing money and not paying it back becomes wicked by virtue of his or her actions?
: Even if wicked men have declared the righteous one wicked, God will see to that!
AF: When? Before the wicked men do irreparable damage to people and to family relations? And please don't resort to that tired old saw about God fixing everything in the resurrection. If that notion had any validity, laws against murder and all other crimes would be meaningless.
DS: I trust that God will straighten everything that is crooked in His own due time. Until then, I'm trying to exercise patience. Every problem will NOT have to await the resurrection.
: This fact does not mean that I should reject the WTS.
AF: According to the Bible it does. If you willingly go along with men that the Bible explicitly states are wicked, you share in their sins. If you disagree, then prove to me from the Bible that I'm wrong.
DS: If my thoughts on the reaonableness of God are correct, then I should wait upon Jehovah to correct "wicked" overseers. Acts 20:28 has already warned us that such men would manifest themselves in the congregation.
DS:: But while Abraham's case is not identical with that of modern JWs, I think his case is analogous in a Thomistic sense.
:: Try using words that make sense to us simple folk.
DS: You could not resist, could you? Well, AlanF, you're much smarter than Dunsscot. I mean that in all insincerity. <G>
AF: Well that's an interesting response. I don't know you well enough to know what you're actually saying here.
My point is the same as from the beginning of this thread: if you want to be heard, don't use words and allusions that few understand, or that your readers have to work hard to understand.
DS: I can only say that language is evidently rooted in Dasein. Dasein both reveals itself and conceals itself. Besides, a little dictionary mining never hurt anyone.
:::: If Jehovah is the Supreme Creator who determines right and wrong, what is ethical and what is not, then by definition what he tells someone to do is right and ethical. Therefore, if Abraham had killed Isaac by God's command, it would have been ethical by definition.:
::: If a voluntarist delineation of God's nature is correct, THEN whatever Jehovah commands is right or wrong. But I'm not so sure the voluntarist is right when he or she contends that the voluntas of God takes precedence over the intellectus dei. Michael Gillespie's _Nihilism Before Nietzsche_ highlights the difficulties with positing a God who is omnipotent in a strict sense. The difficulties involved here can also be observed in Plato's "Euthyphro."
AF:: This is a large question, true, but it is irrelevant to the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, which after all is what you're on this board supporting. For JWs, your words are meaningless. If a standard of morality exists apart from God, then God did not make it. If such exists, then God of necessity must be obeying someone else -- whoever created that standard. But according to JWs, God is omnipotent and answers to no one else. That's pretty much what the Bible says, too.
: I don't think I typed that a "standard of morality exists apart from God."
AF: So what? It follows inevitably from the proposition that God has a choice between following and not following some moral standard that was not determined by God himself. This is elementary and I don't see why I have to explain it to you.
DS: It only follows if one thinks in a binary or two-valued fashion. I do not accept your formulation because Hegel shows us an alternative to your either/or reasoning.
AF: We have a simple truth: either God created the full moral fabric under which the sentient beings in our purvue operate, or he did not. If you admit he did, then you admit that what you call "voluntarism" is true. If not, then someone other than God created it. Who would that be? Or did this moral fabric arise of itself from a primordial moral soup? Plenty of other hard questions follow.
DS: The third option provided by Isaak Dorner (employing Hegel's dialectical triad) is that the "moral fabric" in which we live, move, and breathe--arises from the divine primal ethical that governs the will and intellect of God. In this way, the moral fabric is neither arbitary nor does it exist apart from God. It is a result of God's primal attribute.
: Of course, Plato's dialogue in the "Euthyphro" might suggest that I am grabbing that horn of the dilemma, but I am not.
AF: ???
DS: The "Euthyphro" shows there are evidently two dilemmas surrounding the nature of piety. In this Platonic dialogue, Socrates wonders whether the gods command that which is pious because they are pious, or because an act itself is pious. Thinkers have tried to solve the two-horned dilemma contained in the Euthyphro for years. But more to the point, your comments suggests that one has to grab one horn of this dilemma or another one. I think, however, that I can simultaneously present and grab a third "horn."
: William Lane Craig argues that God is necessarily good. Therefore, He can only enact righteous decrees.
AF: I don't give a rat's ass about William Lane Craig, but if as the Bible says, "God is good" is true in an absolute sense, then whatever decrees God enacts are necessarily and by definition righteous. But that is not the point here. The point is whether those decrees are righteous by some standard apart from God, or are righteous because God decreed them.
DS: I am arguing that righteous decrees are neither righteous by virtue of some standard apart from God nor because He necessarily enacts decrees in a righteous manner. God is Absolute Freedom. As such, He freely defines that which is just, righteous, and holy or pious. Therefore, Craig seems to be wrong when he insists God necessarily decides that which is righteous. God has free will, and uses it to determine what is either right or wrong.
AF: Let me put it another way: Which came first? God, or the moral standards?
DS: Maybe neither. But if I had to choose, I would say God. But your question may be faulty in nature.
: The only thing that I do not like about Lane's approach is his seeming contention that God has no choice when it comes to enacting righteous or unrighteous decrees. I personally think that God freely chooses that which is just, pious or holy on the basis of His just character and the primal ethical (love). That is, love is the divine primal attribute that governs the divine will and intellect.
AF: I think what you're saying is that an absolute standard of morality exists apart from God, but that God always freely chooses to act in accord with that standard. Thus, you're saying that God is not free to change that standard of morality.
DS: What I am suggesting is that such "abstract" concepts as justice, goodness, love, piety, and even time may have subsisted or obtained eternally as part of the divine nature itself. Thus, justice is a material value that does not exist apart from God, but nevertheless is objective in nature. Justice did not have an origin: God, who is everlasting, has always been just. But the mandate to "pursue justice" (for example) possibly emanated neither from the will or intellect of God alone; it actually derived from the dialectical movement in God Himself between the will, intellect, and primal ethical.
More germane for this discussion, however, is that God cannot change His standard. It is neither arbitrary nor is it based on a standard apart from God. But God formulates certain codes of conduct that are material in nature, and in accordance with human nature.
AF: Of course, you could say that God in his infinite wisdom planned long in advance that he was going to make such changes somewhere along the way, and thus that there was no real change in morality. But that's pretty well self-defeating, as a little thought will show you.
DS: I do not want to take the route you propose. See my answer above.
AF: Nevertheless, under the Law it was immoral for Jews to violate the Sabbath; Christians do not hearken to that morality. And it was moral for Jewish men to marry any number of women and to screw around with any number of concubines. According to God, it was moral. Your arguments don't change that and you've completely sidestepped this problem.
DS: As far as the Sabbath is concerned, read Hebrews 4:1-11. Can you show me, from the Bible, where God ever said it was moral to practice polygamy?
DS: Abraham might have obeyed, but I don't think that we would have a good reason to obey in similar circumstances.
AF: What? You're telling me that sometimes it's proper to disobey God? By what moral standard?
DS: I'm saying that with the knowledge that we have of God today, knowing what we know about His personality, we are justified if we act in accord with such knowledge. For instance, I know that God does not want child sacrifices. The prophet Micah makes this point clearly. So I do not think I would be expected to offer my child to God today with the evidence that lies before me.
: For instance, we now know that God does not desire human sacrifices. So if anyone told us that God wanted us to kill out child as a SACRIFICE, we would rightly repudiate such a request.
AF: Totally false. God could easily change his standards. He has done so before and he may well do it again.
DS: You have yet to show that God ever changes His standard (Psalm 33:11; Malachi 3:6). The examples above do not suffice. Only a voluntaristic God could change His standard. The God of the OT, as Dorner shows, is not such a God. For a helpful treatment of this subject, you might also consult Michael Gillepie's _Nihilism before Nietzsche_, who shows the difference btween the potentia ordinata and the potentia absoluta.
AF: More important to you as a claimed worshiper of God, if you knew that it was God himself who told you to do such a thing, would you obey God and show complete faith in him like Abraham did? Or would you prove faithless and do according to your own will?
DS: I would do neither. I would act in a way that is in harmony with God's revelation of Himself. HE (the Rock) says that He does not want His worshipers to sacrifice their children to Him. My God would never ask me to do such a thing. Put in even stronger terms, God would never ask me to sacrifice my child, if His revelation is authentic.
AF: Besides, who are you to become a law unto yourself and determine what God ought to do? You express chagrin at the thought of contradicting the Governing Body, but have no problem with the thought of contradicting God. Doesn't that prove that you, like most other JWs, put the mouthings of JW leaders above the commands of God?
DS: Who said I never contradict the Governing Body? While I am not trying to become a law unto myself, I do think that God provided revelation and the capacity of reason in order that His servants might know how they ought to walk before Him. I am not saying its right to contradict God. I am simply contending that we must act in harmony with the divine self-disclosure that is available to us.
::: This fact does not mean that an action is right because God commands it. Duns Scotus thought that if God commanded us to commit adultery, then marital infidelity would be permissible. I disagree in toto, pace Duns. If we favor such an interpretation of the divine potentia, we open up Pandora's box, and allow nihilism to run rampant.
:: So what? That's the way it is. Old Duns was right. God, being the creator, can declare any actions he pleases to be right. That he does so is demonstrable from Bible stories. It was just fine for patriarchs -- and certainly kings -- to have as many wives and concubines as they could handle. Such practices were regulated, but that does not negate the fact that, as implied by Jesus, God changed his standards for marital fidelity sometime between Adam and Abraham. The original was supposedly one man, one woman, period. The faithful among the patriarchs held strictly to the standards God set for them -- including screwing their wives' servants when their wives allowed it -- and so, if later Bible writers held these men up as paragons of morality, then they were righteous -- by definition!
: I've already shown why one need not accept the voluntarist construal of matters.
AF: No you haven't. You've merely alluded to the writings of a few worldly philosophers. I've shown why what you actually appear to be saying contradicts the Bible and common sense.
DS: In response to the last sentence here, no you have not.
: Concerning polygamy: Jesus did not say that God changed His standard to accomodate the patriarchs and Israel. He declared that Moses "suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so."
AF: You're talking about divorce, but I said nothing about divorce. Nor does polygamy have anything to do with divorce or with Jesus' words about divorce. That is why I specifically stated that my point was implied by Jesus. Obviously I have to explain this to you: Jesus stated: "Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh'? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart." (Matthew 19:4-6) Obviously God's standard from the beginning was for one man and one woman to be married. Obviously by patriarchal times (only a couple of hundred years from the Flood at most by the Watchtower timetable) that standard had given way, with God's approval, to one man and many women. How and when that happened is irrelevant to my point, which is that God had one standard for mankind in Adam and Eve's day, and another in patriarchal times. Since that change occurred before Israel existed, Jesus' words about divorce and the Law are irrelevant.
DS: My point is that you cannot use Jesus' word to suggest God's standard changed, for it did not. Show me biblically where God ever approved of polygamy.
Continued in next post,
Dan
