26 Jul 04
In Fear and Trembling the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard draws our attention to a story in the bible: God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham attempts to comply, but God stays his hand at the last moment.
To an outside observer, Abraham's willingness to kill his son is indefensible (God told me to is not accepted as an excuse for murder in courts of law). But to Abraham, given his strong personal relationship with God, it was a simple, if painful decision.
No Kierkegaard was not trying to ridicule religious faith. Quite the opposite, as I read him.
But I have this question for the religiously-minded people on this site: if you believed with absolute certainty that God wanted you to kill someone, would you do it?
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by ColettiThe question was clearly intended to be answered Yes or No.
Are you saying that killing is unbiblical? That's really the key. If it is biblical to kill, then I may kill. If it is not biblical, then God has spoken and I may not kill.
I think I am not too far off the mark to presume that one point
of such a direct question is to not allow the evangelists to hide
behind abstract doctrine and biblical rhetoric, but to answer a
hypothetical but very specific, concrete question.
You have avoided both the question and the intent behind it.
Further, you constructed two cases, both of which you failed
to answer with a direct Yes or No.
Dr. Cribs
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by lloydkCribs may have a point. I'm trying to see where this is going before it get's there. So I'll plunge in.
...
But I have this question for the religiously-minded people on this site: if you believed with absolute certainty that God wanted you to kill someone, would you do it?
My answer is YES.
Now we see where this goes.
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by ColettiI have one path to take this...
Cribs may have a point. I'm trying to see where this is going before it get's there. So I'll plunge in.
My answer is YES.
Now we see where this goes.
You know with certainty that God wants you to refrain
from breaking the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness..."
Have you ever broken this?
If so, why did you disregard God's desire in that case,
but yet be so sure that you would heed his desire in the killing case?
I think the heart of the matter is that it is difficult to practice what
you preach. Sure, you say "Don't lie" but it's harder to do. Sure,
you can say, "I'd kill if God told me to" but I think that would be
even harder to do.
I think it is very difficult to honestly answer this question with "Yes."
Dr. Cribs
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by CribsPoint taken. I have failed to do many things God has commanded. I wondering what then is the point of the question? If I answered 'no,' you still have the same argument, maybe I'd end up doing it anyway. So is ability the issue? Or willingness.
I have one path to take this...
You know with certainty that God wants you to refrain
from breaking the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness..."
Have you ever broken this?
If so, why did you disregard God's desire in that case,
but yet be so sure that you would heed his desire in the killing case?
I think the heart of the matter is tha ...[text shortened]... do.
I think it is very difficult to honestly answer this question with "Yes."
Dr. Cribs
The point from context of the question appears to be, would I be willing to do something just because God said so, no matter that it might go against my grain.
Hmmm. Nice trap mr. Cribs. You pressed your opponent "to answer with a direct Yes or No" where either answer could be assaulted as incorrect. Very slick. I should not have fallen for it, but it only wins you one point.
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by ColettiAdmitting that you don't know and were thus unable to
Point taken. I have failed to do many things God has commanded. I wondering what then is the point of the question? If I answered 'no,' you still have the same argument, maybe I'd end up doing it anyway. So is ability the issue? Or willingness.
The point from context of the question appears to be, would I be willing to do something just because Go ...[text shortened]... ted as incorrect. Very slick. I should not have fallen for it, but it only wins you one point.
answer the question would also have been fine.
To speak generally, but not necessarily accurately, about
people who oppose religion here, I would say that this
is one characteristic about evangelism that is disliked.
The evangelists frequently speak as if
1) They do know all the answers, going so far as citing
Biblical passages to irrefutably back them up.
2) They do practice what they preach, when in reality,
what they preach is only an unrealized ideal.
Real faith is typically presented here as if it encompasses
1 and 2.
Dr. Cribs
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by lloydkWell know God doesn't do that it would be the Devils demons that would tell you to do that.
In Fear and Trembling the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard draws our attention to a story in the bible: God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham attempts to comply, but God stays his hand at the last moment.
To an outside observer, Abraham's willingness to kill his son is indefensible (God told me to is not accepted as an excuse for murder i ...[text shortened]... if you believed with absolute certainty that God wanted you to kill someone, would you do it?
26 Jul 04
Originally posted by RBHILLI think RB has hit on something here. Why does the Bible (God's own book, ostensibly) portray him as some sort of evil game show host in this story?
Well know God doesn't do that it would be the Devils demons that would tell you to do that.
"Kill your son...get the prize." "Kill your son...get the prize."
"Holy cow, man!! You were actually gonna do it!!" "I got ya!"
"admit it...I got ya!! whose your father?"
TheSkipper
26 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsAdmitting that you don't know and were thus unable to
Admitting that you don't know and were thus unable to
answer the question would also have been fine.
To speak generally, but not necessarily accurately, about
people who oppose religion here, I would say that this
is one characteristic ...[text shortened]... pically presented here as if it encompasses
1 and 2.
Dr. Cribs
answer the question would also have been fine.
But I do know the answer. My answer is yes. That is an honest answer - that to the best of my ability, I would be willing to kill if I was certain God wanted me to kill.
I'd like to see where someone takes that line.
To speak generally, but not necessarily accurately, about
people who oppose religion here, I would say that this
is one characteristic about evangelism that is disliked.
The evangelists frequently speak as if
I think you're getting off topic here but I'll follow up.
1) They do know all the answers, going so far as citing
Biblical passages to irrefutably back them up.
Hello!! Are you saying that Evangelicals should NOT back-up their answers with scripture? Isn't that part of what defines being an Evangelical?
No, I suppose you mean that they act as if they know all the answers. Well, I guess being a know-it-all can be annoying. Kind of like how the other team is annoying when your team losed to them.
All I'm saying is that someone being confident in their answers may be annoying, but that's partly because they disagree with yours. And you don't feel half as confident in your own answers. But don't let your emotions fog your reasoning.
2) They do practice what they preach, when in reality,
what they preach is only an unrealized ideal.
Yes, goals are always important. Perfection is always beyond reach, but that does not mean we should not try to do better.
However, there are many hypocrites that get lots of press. But to place that image of a hypocritical Evangelical on all others is giving into stereotypes. I did not think that was something you would so easily give in to. Or maybe I am wrong about that.
26 Jul 04
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiStereotypes do have usefulness. I don't think that it is
But to place that image of a hypocritical Evangelical on all others is giving into stereotypes. I did not think that was something you would so easily give in to. Or maybe I am wrong about that.
a point of debate that some religious and non-religious
among us experience frustration with each other. I
was using that sterotype to propose one explanation
for the frustration experienced by the non-religious types.
The degree of accuracy of the stereotype is irrelevant here,
in the sense that if the non-religous really do perceive
that stereotype, then that perception could explain the source
of their frustration.
Dr. Cribs