Continued from last post:
: 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.
AF: Well that pretty solidly eliminates JW leaders, doesn't it! When have you known them to listen to reason?
DUNS: Instead of dealing with the scriptural and lexical evidence, you bring in an irrelevant personal attack on “JW leaders.”
: The Insight book also notes that the word indicates that a "reasonable" person does not go by the letter of the law.
AF: I'm not trying to create a general principle that everyone should in all cases go by the letter of the law.
DUNS: You continue to miss very elementary points. Let me spell it out for you. You contended that we must take verses such as Proverbs 17:15 at face value. You imply that God always goes by the letter of the law. If Proverbs says that the one declaring the righteous one wicked is wicked, then he is, so you say. However, God does not think in such binary terms. He is reasonable and adjudicates each situation thoroughly before determining whether one person is wicked and another is not. To word this problem in concrete fashion, God does not automatically consider a person wicked because he borrows money and does not pay it back. Instead, He looks at the intent and motivations of the human heart.
: 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.
AF: Fine.
: 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).
AF: We note that you failed to explain just why you think God was being "reasonable" here, in not upholding his stated law. You just sort of imply that God's showing mercy must have been reasonable. Again you've failed to fully address an important point.
DUNS: You fail to understand a basic point. If EPIEIKHS can refer to the quality of not following the letter of the law, then any clemency shown in the face of a directly stated law could be construed as an example of reasonableness. In other words, by definition alone, anytime God does not rigidly apply a law He has set in place for humans, He is being reasonable. But reasonableness is not confined to acts of clemency. God also showed reasonableness when he dealt with Lot when He manifested supreme consideration for His servant as the holy angels escorted Lot’s family out of Sodom.
AF: At any rate, that's an extremely bad example of "God's reasonableness". Note God's promise to David:
quote:
*** Rbi8 2 Samuel 7:12-16 ***
12 When your days come to the full, and you must lie down with your forefathers, then I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, which will come out of your inward parts; and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite. 14 I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son. When he does wrong, I will also reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam. 15 As for my loving-kindness, it will not depart from him the way I removed it from Saul, whom I removed on account of you. 16 And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.
By the time David sinned with Bath-sheba, God had evidently not yet chosen which of David's sons would succeed him on the throne. The way it worked out, God chose Solomon -- the son of David and Bath-sheba, so it appears that God was not too pleased with David's previous sons. Therefore, for God's personal plans to work out, he had to keep David alive long enough to bear a son acceptable to him. Furthermore, God had prophesied concerning David:
quote:
*** Rbi8 Acts 13:22 ***
[God] raised up for them David as king, respecting whom he bore witness and said, 'I have found David the son of Jes'se, a man agreeable to my heart, who will do all the things I desire.'
DUNS: Why do you overlook the clues contained in the Davidic narrative and hop all over the Bible trying to piece together God’s motives for sparing David? The story itself makes it clear why God preserved David and shows that you are manifestly wrong. You make it sound as if YHWH had not thought about who would succeed David or how He would work out His purpose in the event of David’s demise. Have you read the same OT that I have? The prophets make it clear that God never doubted the seed of Abraham would come through the line of David. God never panicked and never had to wonder, what am I going to do now? That explanation does not do justice to the OT depiction of God. Secondly, God did not kill David because David was repentant. 2 Samuel 12:13 reads: “And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against Jehovah. And Nathan said unto David, Jehovah also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” Dr. Robert D. Bergen also observes:
“Why did the Lord choose not to enforce the unambiguous requirements of the Sinai covenant? There can be but one answer: because he is ‘the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin’ (Exod 34:7). David lived for the same reason that the nation of Israel would live beyond its sin” (Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1996).
AF: Given that God's first choice of king, Saul, didn't work out too well, and God had to kill him, it would hardly do for God to have his 2nd choice of king not work out and have to kill him too. So it's a pretty good bet that a lot of God's motive for showing mercy towards David was really a way for him to save face. And since David did not actually murder Uriah, but only had him perform the normal duties of a soldier, which Uriah was at risk for anyway, David was not a murderer in fact, but only, say, a near-murderer. I don't think that God would have had mercy on David if he had picked up a sword and killed him outright.
DUNS: Nothing in the narrative indicates God spared David to “save face.” Why would an omniscient God be caught in some type of dilemma, as you imply? What is more, the story itself tells the readers that God did not put David to death BECAUSE the King repented. God’s show of clemency in this account is consistent with the divine manifestation of reasonableness described in James 3:17. Moreover, as far as your contention about David not killing Uriah, we observe the falsity of this claim in 2 Samuel 12:9-10.
AF: At any rate, all that the example of David and Bath-sheba shows is that isolated acts of wickedness can be forgiven and do not necessarily make a person wicked.
DUNS: Duh! You finally got it.
::: while righteous men do no such thing.
:: 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.
: 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.
AF: Here you're comparing apples and oranges. The example of David was one of isolated acts of adultery and near-murder. I am talking about an institutional policy that for decades has worked to "declare the righteous one wicked". A policy that has been voted on for 25 years by a panel of about a dozen Governing Body members. These men have been told time and again how disgusting and unscriptural their policy is, but they do not listen. Indeed, in 1981 they extended it so that people who simply walked away and said that they were no longer JWs were treated worse than if they had molested children or had committed murder, and were shunned. And as you know, in 2000 they extended it yet again so as to declare that anyone who unrepentantly took a blood transfusion was not disfellowshipped, but was declared to have disassociated himself, so as to avoid legal complications in countries that were complaining about the DF'ing policy. Can you think of a better example of "framing mischief by law"?
DUNS: David *committed* adultery and murder. Read the account! Another point that we needs to bring out here is that you have not yet shown the blood transfusion “policy” is truly “disgusting and unscriptural.” Just saying it is so does not cut it. Before you can say the Governing Body is guilty of ‘declaring the righteous one wicked” you must show that the blood transfusion doctrine is in fact “disgusting and unscriptural.” However, let us say that the “policy” on blood transfusions is unscriptural. Let us also assume, as you do, that “a panel of about a dozen Governing Body members” has voted to keep the blood transfusion “policy” in place. Does that mean the said Governing Body members are “wicked” since they have putatively declared the righteous one wicked? The biblical answer is no. We must look at intent, inclination, and one’s motivation. Even if we could call the GB members wicked, it certainly does not follow that they are incorrigibly or irremediably wicked.
::: 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.
:: 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.
: I am trying to help you to see, however, that you cannot rightly conclude that ANYONE declaring the righteous wicked becomes or is wicked.
AF: And I am trying to help you see that anyone who makes a practice of declaring the righteous one wicked is wicked.
DUNS: Not necessarily. We must consider intent. Look at the wicked course King Manasseh took. In the end, he was not incorrigibly wicked. By virtue of mens rea, Manasseh probably was not wicked in God’s eyes at all.
: 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?
AF: Not in the case of one child. But if it happens with every child, then that would be the appropriate conclusion. Not necessarily correct, but appropriate. After all, no man is able to judge something as complicated as whether a parent did enough things right.
DUNS: A number of parents, Witnesses and non-Witnesses, have experienced the truthfulness of this passage. It has been fulfilled in a number of families. But my point is that we cannot take the passage at face value, even if a number of children in a certain area deviate from the path of righteousness. Other factors must be taken into consideration.
: 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?
AF: Of course not, because it doesn't say that. It speaks of what wicked people do, not what acts determine who is wicked. It says, "the wicked one is borrowing and does not pay back"; it does not say, "the one who does not pay back is wicked". This is elementary logic, dunsscot!
DUNS: I guess its true what they say about a person leaving the truth. His or her eyes are often blinded to the truth. Psalm 37:21 clearly teaches that it is wicked to borrow and not pay back money. The next part of the verse even goes on to say: “BUT the righteous dealeth graciously, and giveth.” The passage thus makes a contrast between righteous and wicked behavior. The psalmist most certainly is NOT saying that wicked people borrow and do not pay back. That statement would simply not be true. There are many “wicked” people who borrow and do in fact pay back. There are also righteous persons who do not “dealeth generously.” Additionally, if you knew anything about “elementary logic,” you would know that we could rightly infer if the wicked one borrows and does not pay back, the righteous one borrows and does pay back. The passage also implies that not paying back money is a wicked act, characteristically performed by wicked people.
::: This fact does not mean that I should reject the WTS.
:: 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.
: 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.
AF: Ok, fine, but where does the Bible say that good Christians should submit to and go along with the wicked actions of such men? Where does it say that a Christian ought to shut up and play dead when wicked things are being done to innocent sheep? Doesn't Jesus' example of throwing the money changers out of the temple tell you something?
DUNS: Who said anything about going along with the actions of wicked men? First you have to prove that blood transfusions are really unscriptural and disgusting. Assuming they are wicked, there are steps that a Christian can take without imitating you and some other malcontents on this medium of communication. Waiting on Jehovah implies neither complicity nor inaction.
:: 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.
: 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.
AF: I'm not going to bother looking up "Dasein". And again, in the future, I'll just delete such pretentiousness. Looking in a dictionary is fine when it's done sparingly. When you make your readers work too hard, you're a lousy writer.
DUNS: Philosopher Martin Heidegger used Dasein to signify human Being-in-the-world. He made this comment about the western tradition of metaphysics: “Due to the manner in which it thinks of beings, metaphysics almost seems to be, without knowing it, the barrier which keeps man from the original involvement of Being in human nature.” You will have to excuse me, but I am used to dialoguing with persons who walk on ether.
Duns the Scot