The Logical Premise?

[Queller]

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia

Per your link - Revelation

I don't see anything there about revelation being just any old thing anyone tells you that you didn't know before. In fact, every entry has to do with revelation in a religious context.

Could you point to the parts that discuss revelation as you do?

 

[Resha Caner]

Could you point to the parts that discuss revelation as you do?

No, I really, really don't want to. Note that I linked to the Cyclopedia, not specifically the article on revelation. Linking to a specific article came from others. When that occurred, I indicated that single article alone does not contain all the aspects of which I spoke.

Note that I have also had to repeat my comment about the importance of context. I never indicated that example should stand alone, but rather that it was part of a spectrum of possibilities.

Over the course of the conversation, I emphasized several points:
* Revelation regards that which you don't know. If other evidence is available, and you seek it out, it ceases to be a revelation (and there's nothing wrong with that). Per Paragraph 10, "the truth of revelation cannot be reached by the human mind left to its own devices."

I'll list out the other points one more time, and then I'm done. You'll have to dig through the Cyclopedia on your own to find them. They are in there; you'll have to trust me on that. I'm not going to do it because I don't believe questions are being asked in good faith. Since none who indicated they looked at the link was able to connect my position to what I quoted from Paragraph 10, I don't believe there is an honest attempt to seek to understand what I said, but only a search for opportunities to ridicule.

* Receiving revelation means trusting. In religious language the word trust is often made synonymous with belief, faith, and other terms. This trust is not blind, nor does it come via verification, but comes from knowing that the one doing the revealing has been faithful to their promises, etc. in the past.

* There is no appeal to a suspension or violation of natural law as is stipulated by other definitions. Rather, there is careful wording about wonder, mystery, and the unusual made possible because God's power is greater than ours.

 

[Obliquinaut]

No, I really, really don't want to.

I really sense you are upset over the turn your thread took in this manner. I apologize, but, as noted earlier you did link it in with theology. I will freely admit that I over-specified your use of the term since it was clear after later postings that you had no interest in a percise definition of "revelation".

But I have to say your recent points have only served to muddy the waters even further.

Over the course of the conversation, I emphasized several points:
* Revelation regards that which you don't know. If other evidence is available, and you seek it out, it ceases to be a revelation (and there's nothing wrong with that). Per Paragraph 10, "the truth of revelation cannot be reached by the human mind left to its own devices."

We can work with this somewhat clunky definition. Would you say that by your use of the term "revelation" that can be confirmed even if you don't actually go to the step of confirming it would also no longer be revelation?

I'll list out the other points one more time, and then I'm done. You'll have to dig through the Cyclopedia on your own to find them. They are in there; you'll have to trust me on that.

Why should we trust you? It is your point, stand up for it! That is what I meant by defending your position. It is yours, not ours. It is never incumbent upon me to make your case for you!

As it stands now without you standing up for your position vociferously and strongly I will draw the conclusion that my position on the use of the term "revelation" is ipso facto correct and you are in error.

I'm not going to do it because I don't believe questions are being asked in good faith.

Give it a rest. This is melodrama. People are asking you in good faith HOW DARE YOU decree that others who merely disagree with you are acting in bad faith. HOW DARE YOU. Such hypocrisy is hard to see. You see, earlier I posted a point that I felt attempted to get the discussion back around to the deeper more directly points of the discussion, but you simply ignored it. I put some effort into laying out my case.

Now YOU complain that others are not acting in good faith. Give me a break.

* There is no appeal to a suspension or violation of natural law as is stipulated by other definitions.

So why did you state:

Over the course of the conversation, I emphasized several points:
* Revelation regards that which you don't know. If other evidence is available, and you seek it out, it ceases to be a revelation (and there's nothing wrong with that). Per Paragraph 10, "the truth of revelation cannot be reached by the human mind left to its own devices."

 

[Queller]

No, I really, really don't want to. Note that I linked to the Cyclopedia, not specifically the article on revelation. Linking to a specific article came from others. When that occurred, I indicated that single article alone does not contain all the aspects of which I spoke.

Note that I have also had to repeat my comment about the importance of context. I never indicated that example should stand alone, but rather that it was part of a spectrum of possibilities.

No, what you said of your meaning of revelation was anything you didn't know before. There was no spectrum involved. You explicitly said that you didn't use the word revelation in a religious sense. In fact, you implied that Lutherans didn't use the word in a religious sense (post 46 and post 65), which certainly seems contraindicated by the Cyclopedia to which you linked.

Over the course of the conversation, I emphasized several points:
* Revelation regards that which you don't know. If other evidence is available, and you seek it out, it ceases to be a revelation (and there's nothing wrong with that). Per Paragraph 10, "the truth of revelation cannot be reached by the human mind left to its own devices."

I'll list out the other points one more time, and then I'm done. You'll have to dig through the Cyclopedia on your own to find them. They are in there; you'll have to trust me on that.

The problem is, I don't.

I'm not going to do it because I don't believe questions are being asked in good faith.

What you believe and what is true are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Kylie]

Whether God exists or not, if you're going to wear your green top tomorrow, you're going to wear your green top tomorrow.

I think you need to read the question again, AV.

I said IF GOD KNOWS I am going to wear the green top tomorrow... Kinda presupposes the existence of God in this case...

 

[Kylie]

How did I guess that was coming?

As a Calvinist, I believe that God foeordains whatsoever comes to pass. Maybe the colour of your clothing would seem completely trivial, the course of history is determined by lots of people making their own micro decisions.

So then how can I be held accountable for my choices if everything I do has been for-ordained by God?

If I crash into another car, am I to be held blameless? After all, from what you said, the crash was unavoidable, no matter what!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't understand the question.

First of all, so what? That doesn't address what I said.

Second of all, are you sure it was inference and not mere association?

Third of all, are you sure the dog's not just a deterministic machine doing what mindless math programs it to do?

You aren't going to respond to my reply to this post, are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you need to read the question again, AV.

I said IF GOD KNOWS I am going to wear the green top tomorrow... Kinda presupposes the existence of God in this case...

Then you're going to wear your green top tomorrow.

Can't you get dressed without making it a philosophical/theological shouting issue?

 

[lesliedellow]

So then how can I be held accountable for my choices if everything I do has been for-ordained by God?

It was still your decision, even though preordained. If you found yourself in court on a drink-driving charge, you wouldn't find yourself conducting a philosophical debate about the nature of free will. The only question would be whether or not you freely got behing the wheel of a car after you had been on a drinking binge.

Whether or not your actions had been predetermined, either by God, or by the iron clad operation of physical laws, wouldn't be deemed an issue in determining your guilt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It was still your decision, even though preordained.

Sounds like a contradiction in terms.
When it's "preordained", it's not so much a "decision" as it is compulsive behaviour out of your control.

Whether or not your actions had been predetermined, either by God, or by the iron clad operation of physical laws, wouldn't be deemed an issue in determining your guilt.

That's false.

If I were accused of a murder that I indeed DID commit, but I can PROVE that someone "programmed" me into doing that, "preordained it" if you will and all my brain/body did was execute those instructions while being completely powerless against them - then the person who "programmed" me to do it would be the guilty one.

If humans were truelly able to do such a thing, it most certainly would be relevant in determining my guilt or lack thereof.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sounds like a contradiction in terms.
When it's "preordained", it's not so much a "decision" as it is compulsive behaviour out of your control.

That all depends upon whether or not you accept the compatibilist theory of free will, which essentially emerged from the difficulty of reconciling the idea with Newtonian mechanics. Even today, the universe looks pretty causal at the macroscopic level.

That's false.

If I were accused of a murder that I indeed DID commit, but I can PROVE that someone "programmed" me into doing that, "preordained it" if you will and all my brain/body did was execute those instructions while being completely powerless against them - then the person who "programmed" me to do it would be the guilty one.

If humans were truelly able to do such a thing, it most certainly would be relevant in determining my guilt or lack thereof.

Except that we are not here talking about somebody modifying your normal behaviour through the use of drugs, or whatever. "My genes made me do it," would be unlikely to cut much ice, even if it was strictly true.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Except that we are not here talking about somebody modifying your normal behaviour through the use of drugs, or whatever. "My genes made me do it," would be unlikely to cut much ice, even if it was strictly true.

No, what we are talking about is someone who made us with perfect knowledge and upon the very second of making us knew we would commit murder. Indeed, it is not modifying our normal behavior, it is making a murderer.

If I were to create a Golem and send it out knowing it would murder people, is the Golem guilty while I am innocent?

 

[Obliquinaut]

If humans were truelly able to do such a thing, it most certainly would be relevant in determining my guilt or lack thereof.

For me, the real value of Genesis and the "Garden of Eden" story of the Fall is that it is a wonderful metaphor for coming of age. At some point we are no longer innocent of the concepts of right and wrong and we must take responsibility for our actions.

THAT for me is what the Fall is. The fruit of the tree is the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", not the tree of Knowledge. As such upon eating it we trade our "innocence" for our culpability for all our actions.

As Sartre says "...man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does."

That works on a non-theological level, obviously. On a theological level it becomes fraught with all manner of philosophical connundra which end up roughing up the concept of God, imho.

 

[Resha Caner]

That all depends upon whether or not you accept the compatibilist theory of free will

That might be interesting to discuss sometime. I've never accepted it because it's never seemed more than a declaration that the contradiction doesn't exist. Attempts to associate logic with that declaration have never made sense to me.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, what we are talking about is someone who made us with perfect knowledge and upon the very second of making us knew we would commit murder. Indeed, it is not modifying our normal behavior, it is making a murderer.

So what you are objecting to is the very idea of predestination.

If I were to create a Golem and send it out knowing it would murder people, is the Golem guilty while I am innocent?

In order to talk about your guilt, it is necessary to presuppose that you are answerable to some higher authority than yourself, whether that be God or your country's legislature. However there is no higher authority God is subject to, so it is equally meaningless to talk about his guilt or his innocence.

As for the Golem, it would all depend upon whether it would depend at a minimum upon whether it was a pure automaton, or whether it was capable of responding to its environment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That all depends upon whether or not you accept the compatibilist theory of free will, which essentially emerged from the difficulty of reconciling the idea with Newtonian mechanics. Even today, the universe looks pretty causal at the macroscopic level.

Not really. I don't require any explanation of the underlying physical processes. The concept by itself is enough to form the conclusion.

If an action was preordained, then the action can't be anything else then "compulsive behaviour" - regardless of the action taker being aware of it or not.

"Free will" implies that what course of action will be taken, can never be known 100% certainty in advance, until the action actually takes place. Because you can not know if the free willed individual will change his mind at the very last moment or not.

If action X is pre-ordained however, then X is the only possible outcome. Set in stone. Unavoidable. Unchangeable. Compulsive.

Regardless of whatever mechanism is being used, be it simply deterministic forces of nature or telepathy. It doesn't matter.

What does matter, is that "preordained" is the opposite of "free willed".

Except that we are not here talking about somebody modifying your normal behaviour through the use of drugs, or whatever. "My genes made me do it," would be unlikely to cut much ice, even if it was strictly true.

I didn't talk about modifying anything.
I talked about pre-ordaining something by whatever means.

It inevitably leads to compulsive behaviour out of the subject's control - no matter if the subject is aware of it or not.

The fact is that there would have to be "some force" or a combination of forces at play here which will make sure that you'll make decision X and not decision Y. Again, it matters not if the one making the decision is aware of that or not.

The simple point is that it was set in stone what the decision would be, before it was "made" - with no option at all to have it play out differently.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For me, the real value of Genesis and the "Garden of Eden" story of the Fall is that it is a wonderful metaphor for coming of age. At some point we are no longer innocent of the concepts of right and wrong and we must take responsibility for our actions.

THAT for me is what the Fall is. The fruit of the tree is the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil", not the tree of Knowledge. As such upon eating it we trade our "innocence" for our culpability for all our actions.

As Sartre says "...man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does."

That works on a non-theological level, obviously. On a theological level it becomes fraught with all manner of philosophical connundra which end up roughing up the concept of God, imho.

This is the kind of wisdom that I can also find in ancient texts from just about any religion. Or most, anyway.

Indeed. Well said.

 

[lesliedellow]

The simple point is that it was set in stone what the decision would be, before it was "made" - with no option at all to have it play out differently.

So you could have spared yourself all the forgoing paragraphs, and simply said, "I object to the very notion of predestination." Unfortunately, from a Calvinist's point of view, the Bible seems to be full of passages which explicitly, or implicitly, speak of predestination. We can kick against that as much as we like, but God doesn't consult us about the proper manner in which he should govern his creation.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So what you are objecting to is the very idea of predestination.

More accurately: predestination by an intelligent force.

Predestination by some combination of natural processes unrelated to any choices of their own is quite a different thing. Predestination by a God who knows all and sees all means that it is impossible for that being to then pass judgement upon me without it being simple cruelty.

Predestination is only a problem in theology.

In order to talk about your guilt, it is necessary to presuppose that you are answerable to some higher authority than yourself, whether that be God or your country's legislature. However there is no higher authority God is subject to, so it is equally meaningless to talk about his guilt or his innocence.

And here we are back at Euthyphro. This is true if one chooses one horn of the dilemma over the other. And, of course, being an atheist as I am, I choose to call such a God arbitrary and cruel. It costs me nothing.

As for the Golem, it would all depend upon whether it would depend at a minimum upon whether it was a pure automaton, or whether it was capable of responding to its environment.

No it doesn't. In this analogy I am God and the Golem is man. I have made him knowing full well no matter what its motives are or if it is an automaton or has pure free will, that it will go out and kill innocent people.

I am ultimately culpable

The only way I am not complicit in the murders is if I am arbitrarily decreed to be innocent because of who I am. If that is justice then justice is meaningless. If that is morality, then morality has no utility. If that is God, then God is not worthy of worship, only abject fear.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Unfortunately, from a Calvinist's point of view, the Bible seems to be full of passages which explicitly, or implicitly, speak of predestination. We can kick against that as much as we like, but God doesn't consult us about the proper manner in which he should govern his creation.

There are two ways to read that evidence of predetermination:

1) God is wholly outside of logic

2) God is a poorly developed concept cobbled together over millennia by humans struggling to make sense of a complex and often confusing world and as such appears to have every conceivable aspect (determinant and indeterminant, All-Just and All-Merciful, etc.)

If God is wholly outside of logic then it is pointless to attempt to understand God in any way. Worship and love become meaningless and must be replaced by unthinking obeiscance and perfunctory plaudits as a way to forestall punishment and pain.

If God is merely a poorly cobbled together human concept to explain a complex and confusing world, well that's easily jettisoned (hence atheism).

(Obviously, IMHO)