Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Per your link - Revelation
Could you point to the parts that discuss revelation as you do?
No, I really, really don't want to.
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.
* There is no appeal to a suspension or violation of natural law as is stipulated by other definitions.
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."
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.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.
The problem is, I don't.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.
What you believe and what is true are not necessarily the same thing.I'm not going to do it because I don't believe questions are being asked in good faith.
Whether God exists or not, if you're going to wear your green top tomorrow, you're going to wear your green top tomorrow.
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.
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?
Then 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...
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.
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.
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'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.
If humans were truelly able to do such a thing, it most certainly would be relevant in determining my guilt or lack thereof.
That all depends upon whether or not you accept the compatibilist theory of free will
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 what you are objecting to is the very idea of predestination.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?