Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Freud as Philosopher
Kierkegaard would ask you, Joe, whether or not this really counts as living up to the Christian ideal, since you received the assistance of God, who as we know can do all things effortlessly and so it turns out to be no biggie.
I would suggest that it "really counts" if God says it does.
How would Kierkegaard define what "really counts"? (serious question)
I would suggest that it "really counts" if God says it does. How would Kierkegaard define what "really counts"? (serious question)
If it's in your log, it really counts. Otherwise, it's just a myth.
Why is it sideways?
a) Your first sentence basically renders human intelligence and the process of reasoning meaningless. So, I'm not sure exactly how to reply to it.
b) In response to your second [serious] question, I was making a merely logical point. If an individual can only live up to God's law through abilities other than his own, then it makes no sense to say that this individual actually lived up to God's law. This statement should be true regardless of K's view of the matter.
But K thought what "really counts" as religious belief is transcendental faith without regard to temporal consequences. He actually thought that the upshot of the Abraham story was that true faith outweighs even moral consequences.
Ostrich runner
Religious "belief" as such requires little or no faith when God is speaking directly to a subject like Abraham. There is the obvious dilemma of contradicting God's law in order to obey God, which requires suspension of ethics...but if the communication is direct and the superiority of God obvious, the decision should be easy. Following that there should be another conversation between Abraham and God about why he is such a dick, and that is where the dialogue would get interesting.
http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum
Religious "belief" as such requires little or no faith when God is speaking directly to a subject like Abraham. There is the obvious dilemma of contradicting God's law in order to obey God, which requires suspension of ethics...but if the communication is direct and the superiority of God obvious, the decision should be easy. Following that there should be another conversation between Abraham and God about why he is such a dick, and that is where the dialectic gets interesting.
You should read this.
Religious "belief" as such requires little or no faith when God is speaking directly to a subject like Abraham.
If a voice is telling you to kill your son, and you believe that voice to be God's, I'd say we are squarely in the realm of faith-based belief and outside of the realm of rational or empirical forms of belief.
Feeling the growl again
Fully living up to the ideal is impossible. I'm not sure if it "counts" whether you do or not, therefore. Even with God's help, here on earth nobody is living up to the ideal since about 33 AD. That's not the point.
This is all beside the point. The point is that humans are imperfect...the teaching is that you can only be saved through Jesus...being saved through Jesus requires acceptance of him as your Savior -- faith in God.
So if Kilimanjaro would ask that question he's an idiot, or else needs to seek to understand Christianity a bit better before he starts asking questions.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
a) Your first sentence basically renders human intelligence and the process of reasoning meaningless. So, I'm not sure exactly how to reply to it. b) In response to your second [serious] question, I was making a merely logical point. If an individual can only live up to God's law through abilities other than his own, then it makes no sense to say that this individual actually lived up to God's law. This statement should be true regardless of K's view of the matter. But K thought what "really counts" as religious belief is transcendental faith without regard to temporal consequences. He actually thought that the upshot of the Abraham story was that true faith outweighs even moral consequences.
a) I wouldn't say meaningless, but I would say secondary.
b) The words "serious question" were added to indicate that I was actually interested in understanding K's viewpoint, or at least your interpretation of it. Rightly or wrongly, I assume this to be the most accurate and informed interpretation I am likely to encounter.
Thanks for answering my question.
Ah, but if the story is true, it wasn't simply a voice. It was an actual, physical, manifestation of Gd. Of course, any conversation involving Gd is, by its very nature, based on one's faith and beliefs.
Crap, I'm going to start having to think to keep up and I should be working...
The commands are rational and empirical, especially with the worldview of Abraham, at least because God had already visited Abraham in many dreams, made commands, and rewarded him accordingly. It appears that after Gn 20, God is communicating with Abraham as a matter of course.
That's good stuff.
I was just reading those chapters to recall--it looked like initially God had visited in dreams, and later it is a little unclear. Each of Abraham's duties seems to start with rising in the morning, so it is at least suggestive that we're still talking about dreams. This is a bit different than my recollection though, which was that God pulled up a bar stool and just started shooting the breeze with him. I'm not sure that being asleep would have mattered to Abraham or made the experience less real.
I will defer to you, then, because my recollection may be incorrect and I do not have source material to reference.
But generally speaking, I would say that we can most likely infer that Abraham did not distinguish between whether or not Gd was just a voice, or appearing a dreams; it didn't matter, because he believed.
Depending on how far down the rabbit hole we want to go, the same thing could be said in many situations, especially when we are not in the physical presence of a person (i.e. a message board).
I will defer to you, then, because my recollection may be incorrect and I do not have source material to reference. But generally speaking, I would say that we can most likely infer that Abraham did not distinguish between whether or not Gd was just a voice, or appearing a dreams; it didn't matter, because he believed. Depending on how far down the rabbit hole we want to go, the same thing could be said in many situations, especially when we are not in the physical presence of a person (i.e. a message board).
I think we're saying the same thing. Here. The Isaac stuff starts at Gn 22, the other errands around 20.
If a voice is telling you to kill your son, and you believe that voice to be God's...
There's medication for that now.
Be safe. Be kind.