My dear friend AlanF,
I will address your your response tomorrow. After we get these little philosophical niceties out of the way, I'll reply to your "book."
Have a nice day,
Dan
Duns the Scot
dunsscot
JoinedPosts by dunsscot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
:Do you, deep inside, feel that you have anything to say? Now, please, don't grind this sentence into tiny little bits and give me your free-flowing stream of associations with whatever Leibniz or Hegel or whoever said. It's a very simple question, I want a simple answer.:
I'll try to resist waxing Hegel, Leibniz or Fichte for you. And I'll also try and keep this post REAL simple.
You wonder whether I FEEL that I have anything to say? Now do you really mean "feel," in this case or would it have been better for you to have asked whether I THINK I have something to articulate? While the word "feel," may be okay in everyday usage to denote 'dinking," it ain't alright on a pristine and elegant board like this one. <BG> So do you wish to rephrase your question for the good doctor, who is not a vir doctissimus? :-)
Christian love,
DanDuns the Scot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear Thinker,
:Duns,
Please reexamine the WT quotes I provided. I did not make any claim concerning the truthfulness of the statements.
What these quotes DO show is that the WT CHANGED the words from the monthly magizines when they made the bound volumes and CDs.
WHY? These were direct quotes from someone outside the organization:The post that you sent contained a part written in bold letters that asked whether the statements in the journals were truthful or not. That's why I provided certain answers to you. Yes, the WT did change the words in some of the magazines, and I think the reason why has evidently been revealed on this board. I don't consider such changes an admission of falsehood, however. Why did the WT change certain parts of the magazines? See AlanF for details. He's the resident Bethel and Old WT expert. ;-)
Duns the Scot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear Thinker,
You ask:
:You seem fond of Kant. Have you read "What is Enlightenment?"(1784) ?:
I have read part of this Kantian work, and I am definitely familar with the quote that you posted. But let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with Alasdair McIntyre's classic _After Virtue_? In this peerless work, he demonstrates logically that the Enlightenment project HAS failed. This point is driven home even more so, I think, in the four volume work by Herman Dooyeweerd, "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought." Dooyeweerd also shows up the deficiencies in Kantian thought, as does McIntyre. For a scientific treatment of issues surrounding the Enlightment and Kant, read Paul Davies "The Mind of God."
Pace,
DanDuns the Scot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
Duns: While my reasons for being a Witness are objective in my eyes, that does not mean that I can successfully communicate the said reasons to you. So what?
:So that means that you should re-think your own line of thinking, especially if it is so cloudy that you are unsure of how to portray it to others.:
Notice that I did not say my "own line of thinking" is so "cloudy" that I do not know how to "portray" my "own line of thinking" to others.
IMHO, successful communication in this case entails imparting ideas that are compelling and cogent (Among other things). That is a tall order when one is engaging in rational disputation. A capitalist may have a valid and sound argument that does not move a Marxist one inch ideologically. Does this fact mean that the capitalist's line of thinking is "cloudy"? Are we to believe that the capitalist is unsure of how to portray his ideas to his Marxian interlocutor? Maybe the capitalist does not have a compelling argument; his line of thinking may be cloudy. But the pure fact of the matter is that proofs are oftentimes person-relative.
Read my words above with this example in mind.
Duns the Scot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
I think that CP wrote:
:And theories need to backed up with supporting empirical evidence or they're nothing more than opinions. Such theories put into practice amount to nothing. For example, I have a theory that if I smear my body with coconut oil and stand on my head, I will enjoy good health and long life. I may put this theory into practice, but if there is no evidence to back up my theory, my practice is empty and worthless, and I will not necessarily enjoy good health and long life. So could you please define theory for us -- do you mean this in the scientific sense or what?:
I am familiar with the scientific usage of the term "theory," however I am using the word in a philosophical sense. Philosophy is filled with many -ologies. We have ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, teleology, deontology, anthropology, monadology, and axiology. The -ology part of the words normally refers to distinct theories. For instance, ontology is the theory of being, whereas epistemology is the theory of knowledge or the critical analysis of cognition.
Therefore, when I employ the term "theory," I am talking about a set of statements that elucidate and specify the modus operandi and/or basis for certain conceptual relations.
If one's theory comes up wanting, he or she should reformulate it. I myself started out as an ardent Platonist. But neither Plato's ontology nor his epistemology adequately accounted for the experiential data I encountered in lived existence. So I'm now a phenomenological realist somewhat. I say somewhat because this philosophical system is not wholly adequate either. Its the one most apropos for the Duns at this time, however.
Duns the Scot
-
41
Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood
by dunsscot into whom it may concern,.
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.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear Jerry and Julien,
You make some valid points that one does well to consider. But IMHO the blood issue does not only affect little babies. Appealing to cases of little infants or toddlers who have died or who might die from not receiving blood transfusions is an emotional tactic, IMHO. I am not saying that you are using this manuever to intentionally cloud the issue. Nevertheless, I think you are not looking at the big picture and only telling part of the story.
When I talked about dangers associated with blood transfusions, my point was--what do you think about a parent who allows his or her child to contract a disease from contaminated blood. We both know that there are certain risks connected with taking blood products. Admittedly, I'm no doctor or biologist. But the health factor alone makes me want to abstain from blood. But would you be upset with a parent who allowed their child to contract AIDS from contaminated blood, as some parents have done?
Lastly, what if the GB is right in this matter? What if God really does disapprove of blood transfusions? I personally think the matter deserves more study, prayer, and meditation. In the meantime, parents should do what they think is best for their children.
Sincerely,
DanDuns the Scot
-
41
Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood
by dunsscot into whom it may concern,.
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.
-
-
dunsscot
Dear Jerry,
You write:
:The blood policy is just that. Embryonic? Hardly. It's been evolving for decades. An ill chosen metaphor. Surely you must understand that a real battle is going on internally among both GB and top decision-makers, not to let a doctrine come to full growth but to change it. Period.:
My metaphors involving the embryo and fetus do not apply to the blood doctrine alone. What is more, I do not think I stated what stage the doctrine is in its development. True, the Society's understanding of blood transfusions has been developing for decades. But my point is that oftentimes, the Governing Body (or Society) may look at a particular issue and misjudge the stage of the issue. This principle does not simply apply to blood.
:It is not God, but the governing body that asks me to suspend my own clear hearing of the voice of God with regard to letting my child die LITERALLY in some SYMBOLIC grand gesture of respect for the sanctity of life. If I listen to qol YHWH, I will be punished by countless family members, my life ripped apart. This is not a philosophic issue being discussed in vacuo.:
Greg Stafford once told me that I must be willing to accept whatever punishments come my way when it comes to obeying God or men. The apostle Paul was willing to endure discomfort and travails for Christ's sake. Should we not be willing to do the same? God reads your heart and knows those who belong to Him. I think Stafford also believes that the choice to accept or abstain from taking a blood transfusion is really a conscience matter. If so, I agree. But I personally do not want to take blood. You may choose to do what you want, however. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you, do you think there are certain dangers associated with taking blood?
Sincerely,
DanDuns the Scot
-
41
Kierkegaard on Abraham and Isaac: Blood
by dunsscot into whom it may concern,.
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.
-
-
dunsscot
AlanF writes:
:You're comparing apples and oranges, dunsscot, when you compare a direct command from God to Abraham, to an arguable interpretation of the Bible by the Watchtower Society. TD's comments are dead on.:
I have pointed out in other posts that I am in process when it comes to the Governing Body's understanding of blood transfusions. Of course, I recognize that there is a difference between Abraham's suspension of the ethical and a modern JWs refusal to take blood. I even stated that I think blood tranfusions should be a matter of conscience, period. 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. But while Abraham's case is not identical with that of modern JWs, I think his case is analogous in a Thomistic sense.
: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."
:Various pagans around Israel interpreted their holy writings or whatever so as to understand that their God or gods required child sacrifice. Yet the Bible says of its God that such a horrible thing never came up into his heart.:
We both know, I think, that the God of Moses (the writer of the Pentateuch) did not want Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son. As you rightly point out, such sacrifices never came up into His heart. 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.
:The JWs interpret their holy writings so as to understand that their God requires that they sacrifice their children on the altar of their 'no blood' doctrine. Yet nothing in the Bible indicates that revering the symbol of life over life itself ever came up into Jehovah's heart.:
You may be correct, but I think you're only telling part of the story. JWs do not have a death wish for their children. They do everything in their power to give their children, happy and content lives. Furthermore, the JW life by its very nature is life-promoting. Lastly, I find it ironic that those who worry so much about the POTENTIAL death of a child who refuses blood transfusions do not care enough about the spiritual welfare of their children to teach them spiritual and ethtical guidelines. Some parents even smoke in front of their children or abuse alcohol. They also fail to teach them biblical truth or transcendent values as a whole. Are they any better than Witnesses who MAY permit their children to die if suitable alternatives to blood cannot be found?
If God permitted the slaying of the innocents in the first century, and he allows abortions today and so many other evils, why would He not permit His worshipers to make certain decisions that mean life or death?
Duns the Scot
-
137
Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers
by dunsscot indoes freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
-
-
dunsscot
Okay Dave,
You can finish up the popcorn and go take care of those chores now, buddy. I delivered a knockout blow to Mr. "pop." Now I'll just sit back as he rummages his basic philosophy textbooks or Einstein's work on relativity trying to come up with something that will dig him out of this deep hole he dug for himself.
Its a lovely day,
DanDuns the Scot