Is Belief a Moral Construct?

[cvanwey]

Searching for God could do various things for you, such as attuning you to deeper levels of reality, considering morality on a deeper level, thinking about where we have come from and where we are going, thinking about the nature and desires of the transcendent deity, etc.

One having verified/apprehended full knowledge of God's existence is then less likely to have deeper understandings about reality, morality, and transcendence?

 

[Moral Orel]

It seems to me that you've papered over large portions of what I've said, and I'm still not sure what you're driving at.

That honestly wasn't my intention, but that hangup you had on free will was mixed in and associated with just about everything you said, so I had to dig it out of there.

No, it wasn't covered at all. Free will has nothing to do with God's transcendence.

A lot of it was covered, but I'll go back and grab that one.

God is an infinite being who will always transcend us and our knowledge of him.

The second point is particularly relevant with respect to God's existence. Belief and the Christian life are essentially a moving-into-God and a coming-to-know-him-better-and-better. You think it would be nice if God declared his existence as a sort of preamble, in order to aid us in our search and our religious life. I'm not really sure what that would look like. After all, what is God? Does anyone really know? It's not really an either/or existential proposition, for to know God is not to know a thing in the world. We begin with a basic conception of God which is then refined over and over again, almost like a snake shedding its skin. Some theologians would say that that process never ends. Because that starting point is basically arbitrary it is hard to know what a revelation of the existence of God would even look like. Maybe it would look like what it now looks like (Romans 1:19-20).

This all sounds like getting to know a person after you know they exist. I cover that later in this post.

I don't know why it seems so hard to you to conceptualize being aware of God's existence. You know He exists, right? Maybe not beyond a shadow of doubt, but still.

Searching for God could do various things for you, such as attuning you to deeper levels of reality, considering morality on a deeper level, thinking about where we have come from and where we are going, thinking about the nature and desires of the transcendent deity, etc.

1. "Deeper levels of reality" sounds like woo to me, you'll have to expand on that.
2. You would consider morality on a deeper level after knowing that there is a God, so that seems moot.
3. You can think about where we have come from / are going regardless, that seems moot.
4. And thinking about the nature and desires of the transcendent deity happens after you know He exists too, so that seems moot.

It sounds like you're conflating "searching for whether or not God exists" with "getting to know God". Now sure, you could be getting to know God while you search for whether or not He exists, but if you know He exists, you'll still search to get to know Him.

 

[zippy2006]

That honestly wasn't my intention, but that hangup you had on free will was mixed in and associated with just about everything you said, so I had to dig it out of there.

Okay, but we really haven't gotten around it. We switched from, "If we know what is good, we will do that thing," to, "If we know what God wants, then we will do that thing." I think it actually moved us farther off course, because now instead of the clear but difficult question of how ignorance relates to sin we have combined that question with the Euthyphro question about how God's will relates to the good.

This all sounds like getting to know a person after you know they exist. I cover that later in this post.

I don't know why it seems so hard to you to conceptualize being aware of God's existence. You know He exists, right? Maybe not beyond a shadow of doubt, but still.

Technically we often wouldn't even say that God exists, because he isn't a thing in the world which existence is predicated of. He does not exist in the way that everything else exists. As is often the case with conceptions of God, if someone were to believe that God exists like you or I exist, and they continued in their knowledge of God and journey towards God, eventually they would have to reject that conception and acknowledge that the God they believed in does not actually exist. Something else "exists" which is vaguely like their initial conception, but it is incredibly different from what they thought. And on, and on. You can compare that to human existence if you like, but the analogy will limp a great deal.

1. "Deeper levels of reality" sounds like woo to me, you'll have to expand on that.
2. You would consider morality on a deeper level after knowing that there is a God, so that seems moot.
3. You can think about where we have come from / are going regardless, that seems moot.
4. And thinking about the nature and desires of the transcendent deity happens after you know He exists too, so that seems moot.

The first point is that you're doing something like saying, "You can dig the foundation for a house with your hands. You don't need a shovel. Shovels are moot." I find that sort of reasoning pretty weak.

It sounds like you're conflating "searching for whether or not God exists" with "getting to know God". Now sure, you could be getting to know God while you search for whether or not He exists, but if you know He exists, you'll still search to get to know Him.

The second point is that searching for God and getting to know God really are the same sort of thing. That was my point. People don't stop getting to know God or searching for God or questioning and delving into God's existence when they become believers.

 

[zippy2006]

One having verified/apprehended full knowledge of God's existence is then less likely to have deeper understandings about reality, morality, and transcendence?

There is no such thing as full knowledge of God or God's existence. That's the point. Theologically we would say that God can be apprehended but not comprehended. That is, we can receive glimpses and flashes and encounters, but we will never understand God fully or be able to pin him down. This elusiveness is a consequence of God's infinitude as compared to our finitude, to put it simply.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, but we really haven't gotten around it. We switched from, "If we know what is good, we will do that thing," to, "If we know what God wants, then we will do that thing."

Sigh... No, we did not switch to that. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. But we'll be judged on making an informed decision.

Technically we often wouldn't even say that God exists, because he isn't a thing in the world which existence is predicated of. He does not exist in the way that everything else exists. As is often the case with conceptions of God, if someone were to believe that God exists like you or I exist, and they continued in their knowledge of God and journey towards God, eventually they would have to reject that conception and acknowledge that the God they believed in does not actually exist. Something else "exists" which is vaguely like their initial conception, but it is incredibly different from what they thought. And on, and on. You can compare that to human existence if you like, but the analogy will limp a great deal.

Semantics, and I think it's silly. You can learn new things about something, and you can learn you were mistaken about something without those things phasing in and out of existence.

The first point is that you're doing something like saying, "You can dig the foundation for a house with your hands. You don't need a shovel. Shovels are moot." I find that sort of reasoning pretty weak.

No, knowing God exists is the foundation and once you have that you're going to build a house on it. You're saying that it's good to dig a foundation so that we can build a house. Well, magically having a foundation makes digging moot.

The second point is that searching for God and getting to know God really are the same sort of thing. That was my point. People don't stop getting to know God or searching for God or questioning and delving into God's existence when they become believers.

I know they don't, all I'm suggesting is skipping one step.

 

[zippy2006]

Sigh... No, we did not switch to that.

Of course we did. You began with that exact phrase:

@zippy2006 Throughout your responses there seems to be this hidden premise that "If we know what is good, we will do that thing". I disagree.

The very next post you had switched to the other phrase:

Exactly! They knew what God wanted, but they didn't trust God so they did it anyways. This imperils your thesis that "If we know what God wants, we must do that thing".

And in that same post you explicitly admitted that the two phrases are quite different:

Thinking back on my posts, I used "good" and "bad" as shorthand for "what God wants us to do" and "what God doesn't want us to do". That's on me for bad communication, but bear that in mind going forward please.

Semantics, and I think it's silly. You can learn new things about something, and you can learn you were mistaken about something without those things phasing in and out of existence.

I don't think it's semantics, I don't think it's silly, and I don't think your argument is valid. Just because you can learn you were mistaken about something without those things passing in and out of existence does not mean that this is what is occurring in the case under consideration. Moving from seeing God as an existing thing to seeing God as existence itself isn't a small, accidental shift. You could call it a shift from a god to God if you like. You are talking about entirely different things.

No, knowing God exists is the foundation and once you have that you're going to build a house on it. You're saying that it's good to dig a foundation so that we can build a house. Well, magically having a foundation makes digging moot.

And it's called magic for a reason. You can't know that something exists if you don't know what that thing is.

I know they don't, all I'm suggesting is skipping one step.

And I'm pointing out the problems with skipping that step.


I'm not sure how serious this conversation is supposed to be. I know you aren't heavily invested in the thread or the premises underlying the OP. I'm not sure if we're getting anywhere, and I'm not sure if that's really our intention. If we do want to get somewhere we will certainly have to be more specific about our conclusions and aims. For example, it seems to me that this is the recent set of serial conclusions you've been arguing for:

• A system without the difficulties of negligence and ignorance would be altogether better.
  • Doubt in God's existence and what He wants from us is not required for things such as trust, freedom, love, and free relationships to exist.
    • We can spurn the good option even when we know it is good/better.
      • We can disobey God's command even when it is fully known.
        • We can disobey a command even when it is fully known.

I would say that each step will require a good deal of work to prove the prior step, and in some cases the relation isn't even apparent. I don't think your argumentation has been sufficient for each of the various claims you have been making. It therefore seems like a lackadaisical discussion. So again I ask, "Okay. What now?"

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course we did.

No, you had supposedly abandoned that line of thinking, even if only for the sake of argument.

I don't think it's semantics, I don't think it's silly, and I don't think your argument is valid. Just because you can learn you were mistaken about something without those things passing in and out of existence does not mean that this is what is occurring in the case under consideration. Moving from seeing God as an existing thing to seeing God as existence itself isn't a small, accidental shift. You could call it a shift from a god to God if you like. You are talking about entirely different things.

It is semantics. When Clark Kent revealed himself as Superman to Lois Lane, we just say, "Holy moly! Clark Kent had this amazing secret this whole time!" not "Clark Kent ceased to exist!".

And it's called magic for a reason. You can't know that something exists if you don't know what that thing is.

Sure we can. Dark matter is something that we know exists, yet we have no idea what it is.

And I'm pointing out the problems with skipping that step.

And I'm pointing out that your problems aren't real problems.

I'm not sure how serious this conversation is supposed to be.

Not terribly. Is it less boring than the time you were having in this thread, though?

I would say that each step will require a good deal of work to prove the prior step, and in some cases the relation isn't even apparent. I don't think your argumentation has been sufficient for each of the various claims you have been making. It therefore seems like a lackadaisical discussion. So again I ask, "Okay. What now?"

Let's say two children find their father's Chessboard and pull it out and, without knowing how any of it is supposed to work, arrange the pieces randomly on the board, and then begin moving them about sporadically. Is it fair and just to judge their Chess playing skills? We can obviously state that they're ignorant of the rules, but it wouldn't be fair to even say that they are bad Chess players because they don't even move the pieces correctly. If we're going to judge their Chess playing skills, would it not be more fair and just if they at least knew that the horsie-guy moves in an L-shape?

At a minimum, if whatever problems you think there might be aren't there, then the search for God's existence is arbitrary.

For example, it seems to me that this is the recent set of serial conclusions you've been arguing for:

• A system without the difficulties of negligence and ignorance would be altogether better.
  • Doubt in God's existence and what He wants from us is not required for things such as trust, freedom, love, and free relationships to exist.
    • We can spurn the good option even when we know it is good/better.
      • We can disobey God's command even when it is fully known.
        • We can disobey a command even when it is fully known.

For clarity's sake, you can omit #3, you just recalled that I was using "good" as shorthand for God's command. #5 and #6 are the same thing, #5 just being a subset of #6. And we can look to Bible stories to confirm everything but #1. How about Jonah? He refused a direct order from God, knowing that God exists, and knowing what He commanded. Or even if we look at someone like Moses who did what God commanded, you're saying that he became a robot with no free will that didn't choose to follow God but was forced.

 

[zippy2006]

No, you had supposedly abandoned that line of thinking, even if only for the sake of argument.

I abandoned the differentiation between God and man and God's commands and man's commands for the sake of argument, but that does nothing to help you prove the first proposition regarding knowing what is good and failing to do it.

It is semantics. When Clark Kent revealed himself as Superman to Lois Lane, we just say, "Holy moly! Clark Kent had this amazing secret this whole time!" not "Clark Kent ceased to exist!".

Obviously your example begs the question, for no one in their right mind could read what I have said about conceptions of God and think that the Kent-Superman analogy fits.

Sure we can. Dark matter is something that we know exists, yet we have no idea what it is.

Eh, to give the same effort that you have been giving: no.

Not terribly. Is it less boring than the time you were having in this thread, though?

Yes, probably.

Let's say two children find their father's Chessboard and pull it out and, without knowing how any of it is supposed to work, arrange the pieces randomly on the board, and then begin moving them about sporadically. Is it fair and just to judge their Chess playing skills? We can obviously state that they're ignorant of the rules, but it wouldn't be fair to even say that they are bad Chess players because they don't even move the pieces correctly. If we're going to judge their Chess playing skills, would it not be more fair and just if they at least knew that the horsie-guy moves in an L-shape?

Haha, that's a decent metaphor. I will be out for a few days. Why don't you pick one topic and one argument that you want to discuss, and we will address that. Sprawling over many different topics and questions doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, and the arguments being presented for this vast terrain are insufficient. Pick one. If you tell me you are trying to get your horsie to h7 then at least I will know what is being attempted.

For clarity's sake, you can omit #3, you just recalled that I was using "good" as shorthand for God's command.

Except you ignored my entire post based on a principle relating to the good. If you're going to drop that objection then the post remains entirely unanswered.

#5 and #6 are the same thing, #5 just being a subset of #6.

They are the same if there is no difference between God and man, which is a thoroughly atheistic premise. But I have conceded the point to a large degree.

 

[Moral Orel]

I abandoned the differentiation between God and man and God's commands and man's commands for the sake of argument, but that does nothing to help you prove the first proposition regarding knowing what is good and failing to do it.

I don't even know what this is in reference to.

No, we did not switch to "If we know what God wants, then we will do that thing."

Okay, let's move forward while assuming that someone can choose contrary to God's will even when that will is manifested clearly to them.

See?

Obviously your example begs the question, for no one in their right mind could read what I have said about conceptions of God and think that the Kent-Superman analogy fits.

Sure it does, Lois just learned the Kent isn't even human. You've been arguing that learning something new about someone means that the old conception never really existed. So the Clark Kent that was born in Kansas and is a mild mannered reporter never existed because we learned that he was not born in Kansas and is much more than mild mannered; that's exactly how you're using it. It's really starting to sound like special pleading on your part.

Eh, to give the same effort that you have been giving: no.

You keep making assertions, I keep showing examples that fly in the face of those assertions. I don't know what else you think needs doing.

Haha, that's a decent metaphor. I will be out for a few days. Why don't you pick one topic and one argument that you want to discuss, and we will address that. Sprawling over many different topics and questions doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, and the arguments being presented for this vast terrain are insufficient. Pick one. If you tell me you are trying to get your horsie to h7 then at least I will know what is being attempted.

Let's stick to knowledge of God's existence. I can know that there is a creator of everything and then be judged with how I handle that information, or I can search for a creator, not be convinced that there is one, and then be judged on how well I searched. Why is the latter better? Is being a talented searcher of God's existence what makes a good person?

 

[cvanwey]

There is no such thing as full knowledge of God or God's existence. That's the point. Theologically we would say that God can be apprehended but not comprehended. That is, we can receive glimpses and flashes and encounters, but we will never understand God fully or be able to pin him down. This elusiveness is a consequence of God's infinitude as compared to our finitude, to put it simply.

For sake in brevity, let's just assume two types.

A) believers
B) unbelievers

I still want to stick with what I responded to in post #101; (you stated):

"Searching for God could do various things for you, such as attuning you to deeper levels of reality, considering morality on a deeper level, thinking about where we have come from and where we are going, thinking about the nature and desires of the transcendent deity, etc."

1. Why is obtaining deeper enlightenment, prior to death, necessary for certain individuals B), but not others A)? Don't all become aware of these attributes, only after death anyways?

2. Does this mean that the ones whom are more exposed to God (the believers), while on earth, do not require more enlightenment? If so, again, why does this even matter? Don't all become aware, only after death anyways?

3. Why would higher pre-death understandings about morality even matter? You cannot sin in heaven anyways, right?

 

[cvanwey]

Many of the arguments against Calvinism focus on this topic or something closely related. You could find discussions like those on CF, and they would include various arguments from scripture.

I started a thread on the topic myself, but it may be more difficult to follow since the person I was addressing had a very high level of education. The term, "sufficient grace," is a Catholic concept, so it isn't used in this thread, but the topic is very similar. See especially posts #1 and #13:

"Ought" and "Can" in Calvinism (unanswered)

I looked through the two posts in the provided link. In a nutshell, this looks to be the gist...?

"ought" = you 'ought' to believe for salvation
"can" = but some simply cannot ultimately believe

For whatever reason, some cannot believe - (lack in perceived evidence, too much perceived 'evil', no perceived revelation, etc). God then instead judges their actions --- (i.e.) earnest seeking, their 'heart', and/or etc, may or may not all warrant "sufficient grace"?

Am I close?

Assuming I now have the basic gist, I still pose my previous unanswered question...

Doesn't 'sufficient grace' conflict with Mark 16:15-16???

 

[cvanwey]

Let's stick to knowledge of God's existence. I can know that there is a creator of everything and then be judged with how I handle that information, or I can search for a creator, not be convinced that there is one, and then be judged on how well I searched. Why is the latter better? Is being a talented searcher of God's existence what makes a good person?

You look to be spot-on here @Moral Orel At the end of the day, we all die. Complete revelation is then furnished to all, whether we are sent to Heaven or hell. @zippy2006 himself stated that as humans, we can merely apprehend God, but not fully comprehend God. We will all fall short apparently. We apparently all fall short in both acquired knowledge of God, as well as achieving superior morality.

However, once we die, we then achieve true knowledge of His existence, and no longer have the ability to sin, if in Heaven apparently. Hence, what is the point???

****************************

After reading many of @zippy2006 's posts, I'm seeing a bit of a conflict?

According to Mark 16:16, God accepts the believers into His camp, and rejects the ones whom don't. But according to @zippy2006 , there looks to [also] be a 'sufficient grace' category in the Bible? Meaning, some may not be believers, but continue to seek Him anyways and may be accepted anyways?

Where in the Bible is this 'sufficient grace' category spelled out coherently? Do you know @Moral Orel ? @zippy2006 does not seem too anxious to divulge this important information? And once it is spelled out, how does it not conflict with Mark 16:16?

I'd really like to know?

 

[zippy2006]

I don't even know what this is in reference to.

It is in reference to the switch that I have referred to above.

Zippy: *Writes long post*
Orel: The central problem here is that you think that "If we know what is good, we will do that thing"
Zippy: Of course I do.
Orel: *Begins to argue that we can disobey God's will while knowing it*
Zippy: Not only have you committed an equivocation, but that long post of mine went entirely unanswered, as has so much that I have said. Is this a serious conversation?​

You've been arguing that learning something new about someone means that the old conception never really existed.

That's a strawman plain and simple.

Let's stick to knowledge of God's existence. I can know that there is a creator of everything and then be judged with how I handle that information, or I can search for a creator, not be convinced that there is one, and then be judged on how well I searched. Why is the latter better? Is being a talented searcher of God's existence what makes a good person?

Why is the former better?

The deeper point is that judgment is not on the basis of rule-following or existence-discerning, and rule-following does not make for an inherently better system than existence-discerning. Belief would be something like a disposition of the heart with respect to the ground of being (God). How is that salvific belief accessed? Primarily through a search, a journey, a seeking, a knocking. Dispensing with the seeking in favor of arbitrary rule-following is not an improvement.

I don't take the search for God and salvation to be a superficial treasure hunt. Granted, neither do I take obedience to be arbitrary rule-following. But if we are just going to dumb everything down I don't see why arbitrary rule-following is better than a superficial treasure hunt.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of a search is that we aren't quite sure what we are looking for. That is, the goal will exceed our greatest expectations. I don't know how that fact could ever be accommodated by rule-following. The rule-following is subordinate to theosis and a part of the search. It is not an end in itself; something apart from God.

 

[zippy2006]

I will address some of your tangents, while fully reserving the right to end the exchange at any point. (After tomorrow I will be on retreat for awhile and will have significantly less access to internet)

1. Why is obtaining deeper enlightenment, prior to death, necessary for certain individuals B), but not others A)?

It is necessary for all. Believers continue to seek and learn and grow.

If so, again, why does this even matter? Don't all become aware, only after death anyways?

No, I don't think so. Knowledge and virtue are not equalized after death.

3. Why would higher pre-death understandings about morality even matter? You cannot sin in heaven anyways, right?

Have you ever read Dante's famous works?

I looked through the two posts in the provided link. In a nutshell, this looks to be the gist...?

"ought" = you 'ought' to believe for salvation
"can" = but some simply cannot ultimately believe

For whatever reason, some cannot believe - (lack in perceived evidence, too much perceived 'evil', no perceived revelation, etc). God then instead judges their actions --- (i.e.) earnest seeking, their 'heart', and/or etc, may or may not all warrant "sufficient grace"?

It's just a general principle. Does "ought" imply "can"? What would it mean for "ought" to imply "can"? Well, it would mean that if someone ought to do something then it must necessarily be the case that they can do that thing.

The Calvinist denies this principle, denies sufficient grace, and would answer your OP by saying that God can damn you for involuntary things such as beliefs. That is, the Calvinistic God says that you ought to do things which you cannot actually do, and then punishes you for not doing them.

However, once we die, we then achieve true knowledge of His existence, and no longer have the ability to sin, if in Heaven apparently. Hence, what is the point???

The point is to get to Heaven, or to be sanctified, or live in God through theosis, etc. They are all saying much the same thing.

After reading many of @zippy2006 's posts, I'm seeing a bit of a conflict?

According to Mark 16:16, God accepts the believers into His camp, and rejects the ones whom don't. But according to @zippy2006 , there looks to [also] be a 'sufficient grace' category in the Bible? Meaning, some may not be believers, but continue to seek Him anyways and may be accepted anyways?

Where in the Bible is this 'sufficient grace' category spelled out coherently? Do you know @Moral Orel ? @zippy2006 does not seem too anxious to divulge this important information? And once it is spelled out, how does it not conflict with Mark 16:16?

I'd really like to know?

Your claim and concern is that some people will be damned unjustly. Sufficient grace entails, among other things, that this never happens.

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which, unlike the Bible, is a doctrinal document:

847 This [previous] affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

​

If you really want to engage Christianity I would recommend engaging Catholicism for four reasons: 1) Along with Eastern Orthodox Christianity it is the oldest form of Christianity. 2) It is very easy to understand what Catholicism teaches on various topics. Everything is laid out clearly. 3) Catholicism represents the most rational form of Christianity. That is, Catholicism has always been interested in offering rational argumentation for its positions. 4) Catholicism agrees with your premises regarding justice and freedom.

 

[cvanwey]

It is necessary for all. Believers continue to seek and learn and grow.

The implication here seems to be that God wants to remain more elusive for some, so they seek harder?

No, I don't think so. Knowledge and virtue are not equalized after death.

I think you missed my point here. I stated all become aware after death. Meaning, God apparently judges whether you are deemed worthy of entering His realm, or instead be denied, and banished into hell/other. This would mean you then are aware of His true existence, after death.

Have you ever read Dante's famous works?

Why would I care about these works specifically? I was brought up Catholic, (up through my teens), and later went non-denominational. I've dabbled in quite a bit; here and there, of differing writings. I understand Catholics also believe in "Purgatory".

But, to my knowledge, no one knows what actually happens after we die. However, staying with the generalized theme of Christianity alone, if you are ultimately accepted into heaven, you no longer sin, right? There exists no sin in heaven, right? Otherwise, it would not logically be called heaven, right? (rhetorical Q's)

Here's my point... All whom make it into heaven, were still all sinners prior to heaven. In fact, they were sinners, all the way up until the day they die. But once you are in heaven, you no longer sin.

Thus, what is the point? Why not just send all humans heaven?

It's just a general principle. Does "ought" imply "can"? What would it mean for "ought" to imply "can"? Well, it would mean that if someone ought to do something then it must necessarily be the case that they can do that thing.

The Calvinist denies this principle, denies sufficient grace, and would answer your OP by saying that God can damn you for involuntary things such as beliefs. That is, the Calvinistic God says that you ought to do things which you cannot actually do, and then punishes you for not doing them.

Mark 16:16 seems pretty dang clear, does it not?.?.?. You must believe. I again ask....

How might one square the category of sufficient grace with Mark 16:16?.?.?

Mark 16:16 implies ought, for the topic of belief. Seems pretty straight forward here...??

The point is to get to Heaven, or to be sanctified, or live in God through theosis, etc. They are all saying much the same thing.

Can you sin in heaven or not? And furthermore, don't all sin, outside of heaven? (rhetorical Q's)

My point being... All sin prior to heaven, no matter what. Once you are in heaven, no one sins. Hence, why not just send all to heaven?

Your claim and concern is that some people will be damned unjustly. Sufficient grace entails, among other things, that this never happens.

Again, Mark 16:16 seems pretty cut and dry. Without belief, you are condemned. I see nothing here which suggests exceptions, like exceptions for sufficient grace?

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which, unlike the Bible, is a doctrinal document:

847 This [previous] affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.​

​

Was this rule sanctioned by God, or by men? How do you know?

 

[cvanwey]

@zippy2006

Safe travels! The above is starting to branch out, under it's own momentum. Feel free to address or avoid whatever you wish...

To keep this on track, you can just respond to the following below:

In regards to the "ought/can" issue, I still see conflict. Mark 16:16 seems pretty straight forward. Even if God speaks about 'sufficient grace', later in other parts, this looks to be in direct conflict with the OP Verse(s). Mark 16:16, rather than being what looks to be very cut and dry, instead has a hidden side meaning...? (i.e.) "Psst, this rule is not hard and fast. If you give it the 'ol college try', and end up not believing, then I will judge you by other means." I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this line of reasoning?

 

[Moral Orel]

It is in reference to the switch that I have referred to above.

The switch we made when I clarified that I was using "good" as shorthand and that we moved past but you say we are operating under now. Okay.

Zippy: *Writes long post*
Orel: The central problem here is that you think that "If we know what is good, we will do that thing"
Zippy: Of course I do.
Orel: *Begins to argue that we can disobey God's will while knowing it*
Zippy: Not only have you committed an equivocation, but that long post of mine went entirely unanswered, as has so much that I have said. Is this a serious conversation?

Zippy: *writes long post*
Orel: *writes a few long responses to said long post*
Orel: Wait, I think you're arguing under the assumption that we have to do whatever is good if we know it's good. Bear in mind that I'm just using "good" as shorthand for "what God commands".
Zippy: Of course.
Orel: *Argues that we can disobey God's commands while knowing what they are*
Zippy: Not only have you committed an equivocation, but that long post of mine went entirely unanswered, as has so much that I have said. Is this a serious conversation?
Orel: I dunno, is it? I mean, I replied to most of your lengthiest post, but it was riddled with 'Knowing what God wants removes free will', and I told you I was using "good" as shorthand, so it's pretty shady to call that an equivocation. Especially since you believe both versions of it.​

That's a strawman plain and simple.

Well, I'll concede that it isn't the conception itself that doesn't exist, it's the thing we wrongly conceived. But other than that it's spot on. My guess is that you take issue with me saying "learning something new" because you want to make some arbitrary, subjectively decided rules on what qualifies as 'new enough' to say 'what I conceived doesn't exist'.

Why is the former better?

I would say, in my purely subjective opinion, that a person is a good person for reasons other than being a skilled researcher. Why is the latter better?

The deeper point is that judgment is not on the basis of rule-following or existence-discerning, and rule-following does not make for an inherently better system than existence-discerning. Belief would be something like a disposition of the heart with respect to the ground of being (God). How is that salvific belief accessed? Primarily through a search, a journey, a seeking, a knocking. Dispensing with the seeking in favor of arbitrary rule-following is not an improvement.

I don't take the search for God and salvation to be a superficial treasure hunt. Granted, neither do I take obedience to be arbitrary rule-following. But if we are just going to dumb everything down I don't see why arbitrary rule-following is better than a superficial treasure hunt.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of a search is that we aren't quite sure what we are looking for. That is, the goal will exceed our greatest expectations. I don't know how that fact could ever be accommodated by rule-following. The rule-following is subordinate to theosis and a part of the search. It is not an end in itself; something apart from God.

I didn't said anything about "rule-following", so would you care to try again?

 

[zippy2006]

The switch we made when I clarified that I was using "good" as shorthand and that we moved past but you say we are operating under now. Okay.

Zippy: *writes long post*
Orel: *writes a few long responses to said long post*
Orel: Wait, I think you're arguing under the assumption that we have to do whatever is good if we know it's good. Bear in mind that I'm just using "good" as shorthand for "what God commands".
Zippy: Of course.
Orel: *Argues that we can disobey God's commands while knowing what they are*
Zippy: Not only have you committed an equivocation, but that long post of mine went entirely unanswered, as has so much that I have said. Is this a serious conversation?
Orel: I dunno, is it? I mean, I replied to most of your lengthiest post, but it was riddled with 'Knowing what God wants removes free will', and I told you I was using "good" as shorthand, so it's pretty shady to call that an equivocation. Especially since you believe both versions of it.​

Here is my lengthiest post. Here is your reply. Facts, my friend.

Well, I'll concede that it isn't the conception itself that doesn't exist, it's the thing we wrongly conceived. But other than that it's spot on. My guess is that you take issue with me saying "learning something new" because you want to make some arbitrary, subjectively decided rules on what qualifies as 'new enough' to say 'what I conceived doesn't exist'.

It's a pretty drastic strawman. Sure, "learning something new about someone" is a strawman. But so is "the old conception never really existed." ("Something new" implies addition, not replacement; and what is at stake is not the existence of a conception but rather a reality. Nevertheless, the strawman persists even if you had said reality, for obviously additional information about some object does not necessarily falsify old information.)

I didn't said anything about "rule-following", so would you care to try again?

You think it would be better if God's existence and will/commands are fully known and then we are judged simply on whether we follow the commands (or rules). You want to simplify everything, get rid of the search for God and his existence, and make everything about simply following the rules and commands that God gives. Call it rule-following or command-following. It doesn't matter.

But no, I'm really not convinced this conversation is worth the time. If this is your level of effort then let's be done.

 

[zippy2006]

@zippy2006

Safe travels! The above is starting to branch out, under it's own momentum. Feel free to address or avoid whatever you wish...

Thanks. I'm not leaving 'til tomorrow so I will just say something here:

To keep this on track, you can just respond to the following below:

In regards to the "ought/can" issue, I still see conflict. Mark 16:16 seems pretty straight forward. Even if God speaks about 'sufficient grace', later in other parts, this looks to be in direct conflict with the OP Verse(s). Mark 16:16, rather than being what looks to be very cut and dry, instead has a hidden side meaning...? (i.e.) "Psst, this rule is not hard and fast. If you give it the 'ol college try', and end up not believing, then I will judge you by other means." I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this line of reasoning?

You need to try to start giving arguments for your positions. I will formalize an argument again to give visibility to your position. Let us compare Mark 16:15-16 to CCC 847 above.

Here are the two quotations:

---------------------------

And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16, RSV)
​

---------------------------

847 This [previous] affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
​

---------------------------

​

So this is what I think you are trying to say:

15. All who do not believe will be condemned. {Mark 16:16}
16. Some, through no fault of their own, do not believe.
17. Therefore some are condemned for not believing, even though it is not their fault that they do not believe.
​

The first thing to note is that CCC 847 is saying that some do not have the opportunity to become Christians because they do not know Christ and his Church. Mark 16:16 is predicated on Mark 16:15 which is about preaching. Belief and disbelief are consequences of preaching. If we want to constrain ourselves to those two verses then we must say that if there is no preaching then there is no belief or disbelief. This is the distinction between unbelief and disbelief: unbelief is a simple lack, absence, or privation of belief, whereas disbelief is an active believing-not after the possibility of belief has been presented.

Now your natural response will be, "Even supposing that Mark is talking about disbelief rather than unbelief, isn't some disbelief also without fault?" Presumably, yes. Presumably not everyone who disbelieves in a purely logical or surface-level sense will be condemned (but I'm sure we could argue over definitions of 'preaching' and 'disbelief' for a very long time). The point that I believe Mark 16 is making is that if someone is truly preached to and truly understands the decision that is placed before them, and they still disbelieve, then they will be condemned.

I think it is a strawman to claim that that Mark 16:16 is presenting a simple, cut and dry litmus test for salvation. It is an understandable strawman for those who have never studied Hebraic literature, but it is a strawman nonetheless. The verse does show forth the difference between the saved and the damned, but it does not provide a transparent litmus test for when such a foundational decision has been taken.

I realize this probably won't satisfy you, but I'm not sure what else there is to say. Perhaps there is an easy way to illustrate the strawman. Suppose your father dies and, for whatever reason, the Westboro Baptist Church is protesting his funeral. You have never heard of Christianity, but when you arrive for the funeral you see protestors shouting viciously and you see a sign which reads, "Repent and believe in Jesus or go to Hell." You consider the sign, think about it for a moment, and then walk into the funeral without repenting or believing. For the sake of argument suppose you go on with your life, never hear another word about Christianity, and eventually die at an old age without ever repenting or believing in Jesus. Are you a disbeliever? Are you at fault? I think 99% of Christians would say that you probably aren't even a disbeliever, and if you are then you still aren't at fault. Thus claiming that the meaning of Mark 16:16 ensures that you will be condemned is a strawman (unless we actually think that 99% of Christians drastically misunderstand their own religion).

 

[Moral Orel]

Here is my lengthiest post. Here is your reply. Facts, my friend.

True, that was my mistake on which post was your lengthiest. So here's the facts.

I addressed the bulk of that post because the underlying theme of it was, "knowing what God wants removes free will". It did not go "entirely unanswered". Since that idea was interwoven with any other ideas you had in that post, I think it's fair for you to tell me what's left after we remove it. Rethink what you said. What still makes sense if you abandon that premise that we lose free will with knowledge? What other things you said in that post don't require that premise?

I didn't equivocate, I used shorthand, and your repeated accusations are getting annoying now. I'm not going to bail out, but if you keep it up with this nonsense, I'm going to use that to justify some serious snark.

We are not at "If we know what God wants, we will do that thing", we are past that.

It's a pretty drastic strawman. Sure, "learning something new about someone" is a strawman. But so is "the old conception never really existed." ("Something new" implies addition, not replacement; and what is at stake is not the existence of a conception but rather a reality. Nevertheless, the strawman persists even if you had said reality, for obviously additional information about some object does not necessarily falsify old information.)

I don't think "learning something new" implies an addition, it can be a replacement. But okay, more specifically it's only when you learn something is false about the concept you had that you learn the thing you conceived of never really existed. My Superman analogy still stands, Lois Lane just learned that Clark Kent is not from Kansas as she previously thought. This is still just a silly semantic argument to work "exists" into the thought process instead of merely plainly stating, "I learned I was wrong about someone".

You think it would be better if God's existence and will/commands are fully known and then we are judged simply on whether we follow the commands (or rules).

I never said that at all.

You want to simplify everything, get rid of the search for God and his existence, and make everything about simply following the rules and commands that God gives.

I didn't say that either. I think the search for God's existence is a waste of time, sure. But "searching for God" is "getting to know God" in my opinion, and that's all well and good. Either us and everything we see around us was created by a mind (God exists) or it wasn't (God doesn't exist). That's all I'm talking about. You asked me to simplify and focus on one point, that's the point I chose because it's the simplest, but you won't let the other stuff go.

But no, I'm really not convinced this conversation is worth the time. If this is your level of effort then let's be done.

You dragged me into this conversation that I have no real investment in at all, I was content to ignore it. I mean, you've got me defending free will that you usta defend, but now you think it's amazingly fragile. I'm arguing within a framework I don't ascribe to.

But it sounds like you're a lot more emotionally invested in this than I am and having your assumptions challenged is starting to wear on you, so maybe you should stop. I'm sure you were having a grand 'ol time with the other fella because it felt so easy it was actually boring, but you know me, I challenge the things that you feel are self-evident, and that's a lot harder to defend. So pick your poison: do you want to be bored and reinforce your beliefs, or do you want to be challenged and do some honest evaluation of your beliefs?