Theology Club: The Big Picture

[Desert Reign]

Hi Clete.
I already stated earlier that what is written on a piece of paper was a social convention. You seem wrapped up in social conventions. A dollar bill is worth less than a 10 dollar bill solely because of a social convention. That is not value. Social conventions will pass and will not be remembered but value is what remains. You can discover a denarius in a field in Europe where ancient Romans once ruled. It is worthless in your eyes because you cannot spend it. Where is its spending value now? I don't know what is so hard about this. This is a theology debate, not an economics one. I am not talking about economics. I am not talking about transient social conventions. I am talking about enduring principles. I am talking about ethics, about morality, about cosmology, about God.

I don't know what you mean by the 'law of causality' but causality is a very slippery fish. That's why I have avoided it. If there were a law such that the state of the universe as a whole could be predicted based on some previous state, then the universe would be predictable as a whole and each moment would not have its own intrinsic value. Each moment would merely be the outworking of a greater principle. (This is analogous to the value of a thing being determined externally.) The fact that no such law exists is a logical consequence of the premises I outlined earlier, namely that God is also real and that 'reality' (the real universe) includes everything that is real.

The point about actions is that yes, they do have 'things' as their objects. But rather, it is that each action is an irrevocable facet of the continuing history of the universe. Or, each action contributes to the character of the universe in each moment. And because each moment has its own intrinsic value, so actions of sentient beings may be judged in the context of that moment. It is because such actions are real that they may be scrutinised. This principle doesn't arise in a dualistic-Calvinistic universe because the universe in which we live (the created world) is a completely different universe from the one God is in and everything that happens in this universe only has its origin and meaning in the other, supposedly infinite world of God. Therefore, in the dualist way of thinking, each moment of our universe does not have intrinsic value. In that context, actions cannot be judged. Of course Calvinists will deny this (as I suggested before) but they can only do so by creating paradoxes and subterfuges, whilst the basic logic of dualism makes moral values redundant.

 

[Clete]

Hi Clete.
I already stated earlier that what is written on a piece of paper was a social convention. You seem wrapped up in social conventions. A dollar bill is worth less than a 10 dollar bill solely because of a social convention. That is not value. Social conventions will pass and will not be remembered but value is what remains. You can discover a denarius in a field in Europe where ancient Romans once ruled. It is worthless in your eyes because you cannot spend it. Where is its spending value now? I don't know what is so hard about this. This is a theology debate, not an economics one. I am not talking about economics. I am not talking about transient social conventions. I am talking about enduring principles. I am talking about ethics, about morality, about cosmology, about God.

I have felt all along like we're talking about two different things but I can't seem to figure it out. Perhaps what is needed is a simple defining of terms. Please define "value" as you are using it and as it relates to the topic of morality.

I don't know what you mean by the 'law of causality' but causality is a very slippery fish. That's why I have avoided it. If there were a law such that the state of the universe as a whole could be predicted based on some previous state, then the universe would be predictable as a whole and each moment would not have its own intrinsic value. Each moment would merely be the outworking of a greater principle. (This is analogous to the value of a thing being determined externally.) The fact that no such law exists is a logical consequence of the premises I outlined earlier, namely that God is also real and that 'reality' (the real universe) includes everything that is real.

The Law of Causality is the reason logic works and the reason you can discover anything and the reason that anything at all is predictable in the least. The LoC is the reason rose bushes don't produce plumbs and why our children don't have beaks and compound eyes. The LoC is the reason your car starts when you turn the key and why the brakes don't send extra gasoline to the combustion chamber.
The LoC is the reason why things are the way they are. It means that things are not arbitrary but that they are "because..."

As for the predictability of the universe destroying your premise, I don't think you need to worry. Even atheistic modern science posits in major theories that one set of conditions (i.e. causes) can have more than one possible effect, at least on a very small scale. And if you've heard of Chaos Theory you know that very small changes in a system can lead to dramatically different results later on down the line. So it would seem that God has made the universe in such a way that while it is not entirely chaotic by any means, it is also not entirely predictable either.

The point about actions is that yes, they do have 'things' as their objects. But rather, it is that each action is an irrevocable facet of the continuing history of the universe. Or, each action contributes to the character of the universe in each moment. And because each moment has its own intrinsic value, so actions of sentient beings may be judged in the context of that moment. It is because such actions are real that they may be scrutinised. This principle doesn't arise in a dualistic-Calvinistic universe because the universe in which we live (the created world) is a completely different universe from the one God is in and everything that happens in this universe only has its origin and meaning in the other, supposedly infinite world of God. Therefore, in the dualist way of thinking, each moment of our universe does not have intrinsic value. In that context, actions cannot be judged. Of course Calvinists will deny this (as I suggested before) but they can only do so by creating paradoxes and subterfuges, whilst the basic logic of dualism makes moral values redundant.

I'm just so frustrated! I must be having a stroke or something because I just cannot for the life of me follow your logic here at all. I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

 

[Desert Reign]

Let's consider the Calvinist position for a moment. I would say that it breaks down where it makes people responsible for their choices and sins when all the while, everything they do was forced. Their choices were only illusions because there never was any possibility that they could choose to do anything other than what they actually did.
Now I am not the first and certainly not the only to have pointed out this contradiction in Calvinistic belief. It is not only illogical but it is regarded by many, me included, to show God in a poor light. It makes him out to be evil.
Why am I saying this? I've said it all before many times. There is no point in debating it or arguing about it. Numerous threads have already beaten it to death. I'm saying it because it is something I can say which I think most reading this thread will understand. Even if of course some disagree. I am not assuming the truth of the notion - I am assuming that a lot of people agree with it and that all of them, as well as those who disagree with it, understand the idea.

Now consider for a moment what we are saying here:
We are saying that men are not responsible for their actions if their actions are determined externally, i.e., in this case, by God.

OK? You have to agree with that. No one who has been on TOL for a year or more can tell me that they don't understand this. You can disagree with the statement, but you surely must agree that this is the position a lot of people here take.

So what does this tell us about our own presuppositions?
It tells us that our actions are determined by ourselves. Since they are our actions, then anything external just means not us. It means that the origins of our actions are within ourselves. We may be influenced by other things, and indeed we usually are, but this doesn't change the fact that the actual actions originated in our own selves. Even things we do that are simply reactions to other things, we are usually held responsible for. Though there are degrees: we aren't held responsible for absolutely everything. It depends on how old we are, whether we were under coercion, whether we were mentally fit and so on. But as a general rule, we are held responsible for what we do.

I'm just saying this, ok? This is what you believe, all you who, like me, say that Calvinism is wrong because it makes God out to be unjust since he sends to eternal punishment those who could not have done anything other than what they did do.

And of course the Calvinists will disagree and protest that all our decisions are our own and arise from within us and we are wretched sinners and how we haven't read the Westminster Confession and stuff like that. But we don't buy it, do we? Because when the Calvinist tells us that everything we do, by force of logic, (or whatever) must comply with God's will, then we see and understand that in Calvinist belief, God's will is the determining factor in what we do.

And in our view, that should exonerate us.

OK so far?

 

[Desert Reign]

(Continuing)
Of course, there is no such rule of logic. It is just another ruse to cover up the paradoxes in their belief system.
First they invent the idea that God has two wills to cover up the idea that God wills all the evil that happens in the world.
Then they say that God doesn't make all these evil things happen at all and they just happen anyway according to his secret will but without him actually making them happen.
And then, sensing the obvious question arising from that, they have to invent a new ruse, that everything that happens must happen by force of logic in accordance with God's secret will.
And when that doesn't work, they tell us that we can't look into God's secret will because it is secret.
Friends, this is gnosticism all over again. They will do anything and everything to avoid having to say that in their belief system God is responsible for or creates evil.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But you know all this don't you? That's why you believe, as I said, that the reason why we are responsible for our actions is because the actions are determined solely by ourselves.

So it doesn't represent a big stretch to go one step further and agree that our actions are moral (i.e. they are capable of being judged as right or wrong) because they are determined by ourselves only.

Just think about that for a bit. I am convinced that is what you fundamentally believe. Because you are self-determined, your actions have a quality of morality or are capable of being judged as moral or immoral.

This isn't conclusive at all, but I am trying to come at it from a starting point that I know you cannot disagree with or misunderstand. If you do disagree with this then you would probably be Calvinist - or possibly Arminian - or Catholic or something like that.

Let's move on. We are responsible for our actions because they affect others. But not only because they affect others but because they affect the whole universe and the universe is unique from moment to moment.

Obviously, when I say that our actions affect others, I am implying that others have value in themselves, that they are worth something for their own sake and that is why, if I have an effect on them, I can be judged for that.

Again, it is not as if the only reason for judging our actions is the effect it has on others, as if the action itself was irrelevant. But the very action itself becomes part of the universe's history. This is because (or is another way of saying) our actions are real. If you need an example of this principle in action because my words are a little pithy for you, then try this:
A man suggests to a woman to have sex with him. The woman is happily married but might well enjoy having sex with another man. They are on a work trip away from home and are both in the same hotel. The woman expresses doubts but the man assuages them by saying 'But no one will ever know'. And it is true that neither he nor she will ever tell about the event. And they are both intelligent and self-disciplined enough to go back to their spouses and act as if nothing had happened. Was their act immoral? If our acts are judged solely by the effect they have on others, then this was not an immoral act. That's why I say that it is the act itself that is judged.

Again, think about that. Is that what you believe?

 

[Clete]

Let's consider the Calvinist position for a moment. I would say that it breaks down where it makes people responsible for their choices and sins when all the while, everything they do was forced. Their choices were only illusions because there never was any possibility that they could choose to do anything other than what they actually did.
Now I am not the first and certainly not the only to have pointed out this contradiction in Calvinistic belief. It is not only illogical but it is regarded by many, me included, to show God in a poor light. It makes him out to be evil.
Why am I saying this? I've said it all before many times. There is no point in debating it or arguing about it. Numerous threads have already beaten it to death. I'm saying it because it is something I can say which I think most reading this thread will understand. Even if of course some disagree. I am not assuming the truth of the notion - I am assuming that a lot of people agree with it and that all of them, as well as those who disagree with it, understand the idea.

Now consider for a moment what we are saying here:
We are saying that men are not responsible for their actions if their actions are determined externally, i.e., in this case, by God.

OK? You have to agree with that. No one who has been on TOL for a year or more can tell me that they don't understand this. You can disagree with the statement, but you surely must agree that this is the position a lot of people here take.

So what does this tell us about our own presuppositions?
It tells us that our actions are determined by ourselves. Since they are our actions, then anything external just means not us. It means that the origins of our actions are within ourselves. We may be influenced by other things, and indeed we usually are, but this doesn't change the fact that the actual actions originated in our own wills. Even things we do that are simply reactions to other things, we are usually held responsible for. Though there are degrees: we aren't held responsible for absolutely everything. It depends on how old we are, whether we were under coercion, whether we were mentally fit and so on. But as a general rule, we are held responsible for what we do.

I'm just saying this, ok? This is what you believe, all you who, like me, say that Calvinism is wrong because it makes God out to be unjust since he sends to eternal punishment those who could not have done anything other than what they did do.

And of course the Calvinists will disagree and protest that all our decisions are our own and arise from within us and we are wretched sinners and how we haven't read the Westminster Confession and stuff like that. But we don't buy it, do we? Because when the Calvinist tells us that everything we do, by force of logic, (or whatever) must comply with God's will, then we see and understand that in Calvinist belief, God's will is the determining factor in what we do.

And in our view, that should exonerate us.

OK so far?

On this point we are in complete agreement.

In addition to what you said here I would add that it is our will that is the difference between a deterministic worldview (of any sort) vs. a worldview where justice means something. It's a crude analogy but imagine a line of dominoes in the process of falling one domino at a time until it reaches a fork where, if it were actual dominoes, it would branch off in multiple different directions at once. Our will is that which allows us to force the dominoes to fall in only one direction or the another.

One might ask, what caused you to choose one course over another? The answer is, my mind. Can we explain every detail of just how it all works and answer every question and resolve every conflict that such a position might bring up. Possibly not. But it is not necessary to do so. If we do not have the ability to determine what course we take then we cannot be justly held responsible for what course we do take.

1. God is just
2. Therefore I have a will.

To deny either point is to deny both.

Defending the Principle of Alternate Possibilities

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[TIPlatypus]

Don't worry, I am not a Calvinist.

We are not completely free beings. We cannot simply do whatever we want when we want. If we could, then no one could judge us, because effectively, the universe is your playground. Or to put it another way, if anyone did judge us, that judgement would be worthless. You would define what right and wrong is.

We are under all sorts of restrictions and constraints that prevent us from doing things. This means that we have to make choices between several courses of action. These choices have to be meaningful of course. That is, the effect of choosing one course of action is different to the effect of another course of action.

This also means that the things or people being affected by the choices you make are also meaningful and valuable.. If world had no value then any choice you make would have no meaning. You cannot judge such a choice to be right or wrong then.

However, if the world is populated be people such as yourself, who cannot do whatever they like, but can still make choices, then any action concerning them would be meaningful. This means that such actions could be judged as being right or wrong. Similarly, if the world has value, then any action you do concerning the world can be judged as right or wrong. That is why people and objects need to be worth something in order for any actions against them to be judged.

Are you with me?

Now, value, if it is given to an object or a person by someone else, once again does not mean much. This object would effectively be worthless to everyone else. (I mean this hypothetically). Say for example, someone else's world that they have complete control over.

If, in the manner I described above, a building is in a city is worthless to you, then for all the difference it made, you could walk through it as if it were thin air. As far as you are concerned, it does not exist.

Of course in the real world, value does not work like this. Every object and person has a value (in the sense I described above) to you simply by being there. You may not care whether something is there or not, but this will not change the fact that it is.

Easy.

 

[Clete]

Don't worry, I am not a Calvinist.

We are not completely free beings. We cannot simply do whatever we want when we want. If we could, then no one could judge us, because effectively, the universe is your playground. Or to put it another way, if anyone did judge us, that judgement would be worthless. You would define what right and wrong is.

We are under all sorts of restrictions and constraints that prevent us from doing things. This means that we have to make choices between several courses of action. These choices have to be meaningful of course. That is, the effect of choosing one course of action is different to the effect of another course of action.

This also means that the things or people being affected by the choices you make are also meaningful and valuable.. If world had no value then any choice you make would have no meaning. You cannot judge such a choice to be right or wrong then.

However, if the world is populated be people such as yourself, who cannot do whatever they like, but can still make choices, then any action concerning them would be meaningful. This means that such actions could be judged as being right or wrong. Similarly, if the world has value, then any action you do concerning the world can be judged as right or wrong. That is why people and objects need to be worth something in order for any actions against them to be judged.

Are you with me?

Now, value, if it is given to an object or a person by someone else, once again does not mean much. This object would effectively be worthless to everyone else. (I mean this hypothetically). Say for example, someone else's world that they have complete control over.

If, in the manner I described above, a building is in a city is worthless to you, then for all the difference it made, you could walk through it as if it were thin air. As far as you are concerned, it does not exist.

Of course in the real world, value does not work like this. Every object and person has a value (in the sense I described above) to you simply by being there. You may not care whether something is there or not, but this will not change the fact that it is.

Easy.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Arsenios]

I am talking about enduring principles.
I am talking about ethics,
about morality,
about cosmology,
about God.

OK - So far, this is ONLY 'talking about'...

I don't know what you mean by the 'law of causality' but causality is a very slippery fish. That's why I have avoided it. If there were a law such that the state of the universe as a whole could be predicted based on some previous state, then the universe would be predictable as a whole and each moment would not have its own intrinsic value. Each moment would merely be the outworking of a greater principle. (This is analogous to the value of a thing being determined externally.) The fact that no such law exists is a logical consequence of the premises I outlined earlier, namely that God is also real and that 'reality' (the real universe) includes everything that is real.

Then you are reducing God to a datum of the created kosmos...
Just another "also" of all that is "real"...
God doesn't "reduce" so easily...

The point about actions is that yes, they do have 'things' as their objects. But rather, it is that each action is an irrevocable facet of the continuing history of the universe. Or, each action contributes to the character of the universe in each moment. And because each moment has its own intrinsic value, so actions of sentient beings may be judged in the context of that moment. It is because such actions are real that they may be scrutinized.

IF you see an action as being determined in its value by the contribution it makes TO the kosmos in each moment,
then you MUST know beforehand what is valuable and what is dis-valuable to the kosmos...
And some of us can barely know where to find our socks...
And none of us has a comprehensive grasp of cosmic evaluation...
And few even a partial glimpse...

This principle doesn't arise in a dualistic-Calvinistic universe because the universe in which we live (the created world) is a completely different universe from the one God is in and everything that happens in this universe only has its origin and meaning in the other, supposedly infinite world of God. Therefore, in the dualist way of thinking, each moment of our universe does not have intrinsic value. In that context, actions cannot be judged. Of course Calvinists will deny this (as I suggested before) but they can only do so by creating paradoxes and subterfuges, whilst the basic logic of dualism makes moral values redundant.

There are far better bases for rejecting the Calvinist world view...

Arsenios

 

[Desert Reign]

On this point we are in complete agreement.

In addition to what you said here I would add that it is our will that is the difference between a deterministic worldview (of any sort) vs. a worldview where justice means something. It's a crude analogy but imagine a line of dominoes in the process of falling one domino at a time until it reaches a fork where, if it were actual dominoes, it would branch off in multiple different directions at once. Our will is that which allows us to force the dominoes to fall in only one direction or the another.

One might ask, what caused you to choose one course over another? The answer is, my mind. Can we explain every detail of just how it all works and answer every question and resolve every conflict that such a position might bring up. Possibly not. But it is not necessary to do so. If we do not have the ability to determine what course we take then we cannot be justly held responsible for what course we do take.

1. God is just
2. Therefore I have a will.

To deny either point is to deny both.

Defending the Principle of Alternate Possibilities

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks Clete.
I probably agree with you. The only thing I would add is that you need an additional premise relating to the will. I don't require such a premise because I limit my premise to our actions. Whether our actions are the expression of something called a will, I do not know. All I know is that our actions originate from within us and therefore we are responsible for them. If by 'will' you mean simply that, then I am of course fine with it. If you mean that there is some specific psychological or spiritual faculty (e.g. soul, spirit, that kind of thing) that is the part of us that makes decisions, then I am not so sure. It is not that I am averse to this idea, it is just that I want a watertight line of reasoning and this idea seems unnecessary for that purpose.

Don't worry, I am not a Calvinist.

We are not completely free beings. We cannot simply do whatever we want when we want. If we could, then no one could judge us, because effectively, the universe is your playground. Or to put it another way, if anyone did judge us, that judgement would be worthless. You would define what right and wrong is.

I understand completely. Good points.

We are under all sorts of restrictions and constraints that prevent us from doing things.

Exactly. That's because the world around us is real. It won't go away just because we want it to. And even though I might name this particular phenomenon a chair, someone else will name it differently, such as a stool or a sofa, or a deck-chair. I have the freedom to name it differently but no one has the freedom to name it a computer, because it is real and reality must be shared. It is not a chair for one person and a computer for another. Clete is of course right about that point. He calls it the law of identity. But for me it is simply reality. Reality is shared. Everything that is real constrains everything else that is real. Reality is therefore, as a whole, self-constraining.

This means that we have to make choices between several courses of action. These choices have to be meaningful of course. That is, the effect of choosing one course of action is different to the effect of another course of action.

I understand. We also don't necessarily have to choose between discrete possibilities. This is why I don't agree with Greg Boyd's concept of God being the one who knows all possible futures. There are infinitely many possible choices even we as humans could make. I mean, even animals, to whom we accord a far lesser ability to make decisions, nevertheless have myriad choices in front of them.

This also means that the things or people being affected by the choices you make are also meaningful and valuable.. If world had no value then any choice you make would have no meaning. You cannot judge such a choice to be right or wrong then.

I agree. Although see what I wrote in my previous post about actions being intrinsically moral and not merely by virtue of the effects they have.

However, if the world is populated be people such as yourself, who cannot do whatever they like, but can still make choices, then any action concerning them would be meaningful. This means that such actions could be judged as being right or wrong. Similarly, if the world has value, then any action you do concerning the world can be judged as right or wrong. That is why people and objects need to be worth something in order for any actions against them to be judged.

Are you with me?

Yes.

Now, value, if it is given to an object or a person by someone else, once again does not mean much. This object would effectively be worthless to everyone else. (I mean this hypothetically). Say for example, someone else's world that they have complete control over.

Clete asked me earlier about objects that are worthless and I said that I couldn't easily think of any examples. The only thing I can actually think of is a black hole.

If, in the manner I described above, a building is in a city is worthless to you, then for all the difference it made, you could walk through it as if it were thin air. As far as you are concerned, it does not exist.

Of course in the real world, value does not work like this. Every object and person has a value (in the sense I described above) to you simply by being there. You may not care whether something is there or not, but this will not change the fact that it is.

Easy.

Apparently not for some!

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Clete, I understood TIP pretty ok. Your comment doesn't seem very constructive.

Then you are reducing God to a datum of the created kosmos...
Just another "also" of all that is "real"...
God doesn't "reduce" so easily...

So let me ask...

God is forgiving, is he not?
Are you forgiving? I assume so.
So both you and God are forgiving.
Ah, but doesn't that reduce God to just another of all that is forgiving?

Now, are you an intelligent man, Arsenios?
I assume so. No one would say you are a moron.
Is God intelligent? Of course he is.
Ah, but doesn't that reduce God to just another of all that is intelligent?

I could go on like this with all sorts of examples. Arsenios, you seem to have forgotten what language is for. So let me ask you again:

In your belief, is God real, yes or no?

If you can't give me a straight answer to this, then neither can you say that God is intelligent, forgiving, just or anything else.
In fact, if you cannot give me a straight answer to this, you cannot say anything about God whatsoever.

So bite the bullet and answer the question: is God real?

 

[Clete]

Constructive or not, it makes no sense because I can't get anyone to define terms!

The existence of a thing does not mean it has value! Value is a subjective concept. What is valuable to me can very easily be worthless to you. It makes no difference what the society says about it so its not merely a social convention or construct. I've got a whole box full of things that I wouldn't get rid of for all the tea in china. My wife would throw every bit of it in the garbage tomorrow if I let her. The things in that box are what they are. They do not change in any way whether I cherish them or my wife wants to toss them in the fire.

And be all that as it may, no one has yet explained to me what any of this has to do with establishing a rational framework for an objective morality. You simple have to make the actual argument!

Clete

 

[Arsenios]

Then you are reducing God to a datum of the created kosmos...
Just another "also" of all that is "real"...
God doesn't "reduce" so easily...

So let me ask...

Sure - But i should probably warn you, that every once in awhile, I actually do speak the Truth!

God is forgiving, is he not?

I pray so, for if not, I am lost...

Are you forgiving? I assume so.

I still hold grudges... And my mind and emotions are often at odds... I think I should forgive yet harbor hidden resentful feelings... A work in progress - How about you?

So both you and God are forgiving.

I try to imitate God in forgiving others their transgressions against me... But more than this, I try to obey God's commandment to forgive all....

Ah, but doesn't that reduce God to just another of all that is forgiving?

Methinks you forgot the Ha after your Ah!

We speak of God in this manner as a condescension to the fallen human condition, because God not only forgives, but He is the Source of forgiveness, and to those who do not themselves forgive others, them He does not forgive...

Now, are you an intelligent man, Arsenios?

I am a mongrel dog, even dumber than the post he urinates upon...

I assume so.

You obviously have more generosity than I will ever have...

Those who do so tend to have short lives!

No one would say you are a moron.

I kneel at the feet of morons - To say nothing of Barlaam's Donkey...

Is God intelligent?

He is beyond intelligence, and its Source - Didn't we already have this little talk?

Of course he is.

Flattering God is even less efficacious than flattering my watering post...

Ah (Ah-Ha!), but doesn't that reduce God to just another of all that is intelligent?

In your mind, I guess so - But like I said, God doesn't reduce all that easily...

I could go on like this with all sorts of examples.

Were yu to neglect to do so, we could BOTH glorify God!

Arsenios, you seem to have forgotten what LANGUAGE is for.

In whatever defense there might be for me, I can only say that I TRY not to forget what SILENCE is for...

So let me ask you again:

Sigh...

In your belief, is God real, yes or no?

Yes AND no...

God GIVES reality to what is real, and REMOVES it from what is not...

He is the Source of real, being in His Essence unintelligibly far beyond it...

If you can't give me a straight answer to this,
then neither can you say that God is intelligent,
forgiving, just or anything else.

You are at the gates, finally... We say these things of God as a condescension to the human condition, in the only language fallen man knows, but we do not pretend that they even begin to bring God into any cognitively fallen human conceptual grasp...

In fact, if you cannot give me a straight answer to this,
you cannot say anything about God whatsoever.

We can say a great deal, but only in terms of His interactions with His creation...

We positively cannot attribute a single thing to Him, but only by negation...

Welcome to apophatic understanding in Theology...

So bite the bullet and answer the question: is God real?

God is WAY beyond real...

.177's are ok for kids - But you might want to consider larger calibers...

Language is a product of creation, you see, and we worship the uncreated Creator of creation...

As long as you are operating in language, you have not begun the ascent...

The first step on the Ladder of Divine Ascent (Climacus) is:

RENOUNCE THE WORLD!

OR - As Christ Himself said:

DENY YOURSELF...

Or, as John the Baptist said:

BE YE REPENTING!

For the Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND!

Arsenios

 

[Desert Reign]

We positively cannot attribute a single thing to Him, but only by negation...

Welcome to apophatic understanding in Theology...

Arsenios, thanks for your comments. However, the Bible says lots of positive things about God. I prefer to follow in the Bible's footsteps. I don't see the point in discussing what we can't say about God. You are welcome to it.

We speak of God in this manner as a condescension to the fallen human condition, because God not only forgives, but He is the Source of forgiveness, and to those who do not themselves forgive others, them He does not forgive...

I forgive you for not answering my direct questions. However, If you could find me just one passage of the 66 books of scripture stating that mankind has fallen, then I would carry the discussion on.

 

[Arsenios]

Arsenios, thanks for your comments.

They were the least I could do...

Thanks for your thanks...

Did you actually read them? Because your next question was answered in them:

However, the Bible says lots of positive things about God.

You will perhaps recall that I agreed with and explained why it does so...

I prefer to follow in the Bible's footsteps.

The REALITY of existence is not a matter of preferences, but in the good ol' US of A, they are constitutionally protected, so as long as you stay here, you are cool... Saudi Arabia, the Bible, and your preferences are not, however, a good combination...

You are beginning with the reality of God's creation, and then ascribing to the God Who created that reality the characteristics of the creation which He created... Somewhat like, though infinitely greater, ascribing the characteristics of Henry Ford to his Model A, or an Edsel, or a crankshaft... You will come up infinitely short, you see...

I don't see the point in discussing what we can't say about God. You are welcome to it.

We do so because there actually ARE some people who think they can PROVE the nature of God cataphatically from the cataphatic statements ABOUT Him which are written in the Bible...

Really!

I know it sounds strange, but in the west, these are Legion!

I forgive you for not answering my direct questions.

Forgiveness is a blessed thing, thank-you...

Did you actually read my post?

You asked a question through the means of the "OR" fallacy of the false alternative, and I answered with the affirmation of "BOTH/AND"...

Perhaps it flitted bye too quickly...

However, If you could find me just one passage of the 66 books of scripture stating that mankind has fallen, then I would carry the discussion on.

Adam's expulsion from the Garden, and God's curse of him, of eve, of the serpent, and of creation...

Do you have any other questions?

Arsenios

 

[TIPlatypus]

Constructive or not, it makes no sense because I can't get anyone to define terms!

The existence of a thing does not mean it has value! Value is a subjective concept. What is valuable to me can very easily be worthless to you. It makes no difference what the society says about it so its not merely a social convention or construct. I've got a whole box full of things that I wouldn't get rid of for all the tea in china. My wife would throw every bit of it in the garbage tomorrow if I let her. The things in that box are what they are. They do not change in any way whether I cherish them or my wife wants to toss them in the fire.

And be all that as it may, no one has yet explained to me what any of this has to do with establishing a rational framework for an objective morality. You simple have to make the actual argument!

Clete

value - the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

So a scrap piece of paper that you could not care less about would still be worth your attention, even if it is merely to throw it away. Everything has value.

 

[Clete]

value - the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

So a scrap piece of paper that you could not care less about would still be worth your attention, even if it is merely to throw it away. Everything has value.

Alright fine, granting that, for that sake of argument, so what?

How does the subjective notion of value help to construct a framework for the development of an objective morality?

 

[Desert Reign]

Alright fine, granting that, for that sake of argument, so what?

How does the subjective notion of value help to construct a framework for the development of an objective morality?

It isn't subjective. If it were, you would be able to treat this chair as a computer. I thought you already agreed that. What it is, is relational. As I said previously, You may call it a stool, or you may call it an armchair, you could even call it a 'sea of comfort' and I think I would know what you mean; so it is indeed relational, what you call it depends on your particular relationship to it. But you can't call it a computer because it is intrinsically not a computer. Its worth is intrinsic to itself and that is why it constrains you.

In the same way, morality is not objective either. I think I made this clear in an earlier comment. I am not accepting Socrates' horn of the dilemma. Morality is relational just the same. But I will hopefully have time to expand on that in another post.

But the important thing to note, as I have been saying, is that a thing's value is not defined externally. Nor is the state of the universe in any given moment determined by any external rule, force or being. Arsenios wants to go down that route. It only means that he cannot answer direct questions about God. And he uses lovely sounding words like apophatic and cataphatic to give some kind of credibility to his philosophy, but in reality they just mean that he cannot give a rational, coherent justification of his beliefs.
But I have no desire to single him out (and he of course is only parrotting his Orthodox traditions): all hard dualists must suffer from one kind of paradox or another. He is unable to state that God is real, and that to me is the saddest thing - where have we got to, what have we become, if we cannot bring ourselves to make such an obvious statement about the God we are supposed to believe in?
It is no wonder that Christianity falls into meaningless rituals, having lost its motivation, its ethics and finally its very God, and then trying to redefine itself through political activism, cultural richness or social welfare - anything to avoid having to admit to the obvious fact that God is real and that the consequences of this fact are also real. Because, like this chair, God doesn't let you call him a force, or say that he has two wills, or that his actions are arbitrary and because, like this chair, God is manifest to man - through Jesus Christ - and is not hidden so that we have to guess or deduce what kind of being or thing he is but he is directly and tangibly available and no one can say that he is unknowable or that nothing can be said about him.

 

[Arsenios]

Arsenios wants to go down that route. It only means that he cannot answer direct questions about God. And he uses lovely sounding words like apophatic and cataphatic to give some kind of credibility to his philosophy,

One cannot philosophize theology - You think philosophy is fundamental to theology, because you think God is a part of creation... I have the Theology of the Christian 2000 year old Church - I abandoned philosophy as having any meaning whatsoever in this regard when I first encountered God some 35 years ago... And I was pretty much Aristotelian at the time... Aquinas had a kindred encounter, and stopped writing and teaching, saying: "ALL that I have written is straw..." ONE encounter... That is all that is needed... And until you have had it, you really cannot know that God is not a part of the cosmos, but is radically Other than creation in a way that creates creation without being a part of it whatsoever... Even, for instance, in the two natures of Christ, they coexist in the One Hypostasis without admixture and confusion...

The Theology of the Church is not rational-analytic, but empirical-descriptive...

This is where Scholasticism erred, and the neo-scholastic West spit out the gnat of indulgences, and swallowed the camel of scholastic philosophic presuppositions, as you are doing here...

He is unable to state that God is real

I have consistently stated that "real" is not definitive of God Who is the GIVER of reality to ALL that IS real, and that God is infinitely more than merely real... So yes, we say that God exists, that He is real, and that He loves mankind... And all these things are true enough, but that they are fallen conceptualizations of fallen man in a fallen cosmos about the God Adam turned away from... Such concepts are in the wading section of the shallow end of the pool that can open into the river that flows to the ocean...

Philosophy is words - Ankle deep, and miles wide, in terms of the time they can consume for the human soul on earth...

Arsenios

 

[Desert Reign]

I have consistently stated

You have consistently been unable to state that God is real. You have never answered my request to provide even a single scripture passage from the 66 books stating that mankind has fallen. And you have been consistent about misquoting, misunderstanding and misrepresenting me, saying things like

because you think God is a part of creation.

- a thing I have never said, nor would ever say. So, yes, consistent indeed.

that "real" is not definitive of God

See? In one breath, Arsenios, sensing that he is losing an argument because every Tom, Dick or Harry that bothers to read this knows that what I am saying is the plain truth and that Arsenios has been found wanting, bravely reasserts his view that 'real' is not a term that can be applied to God.

So yes, we say that God exists, that He is real,

but in the next breath has to backtrack and contradict himself out of fear of looking a fool in the face of obvious truths.

And all these things are true enough, but that they are fallen conceptualizations of fallen man in a fallen cosmos

But then, having appeared to concede the obvious truth, now he does a double backtrack to say that he didn't really mean what he just said after all. He would like to say that the statement 'God is real' is true and worth saying but he can't bring himself to do that unequivocally because he doesn't want to admit that man is capable of understanding anything about God. If he has to concede anything at all here, it is only at the expense of this claim that man is fallen and hence all his knowledge is false. There is a word for all this: equivocation.

about the God Adam turned away from... Such concepts are in the wading section of the shallow end of the pool that can open into the river that flows to the ocean... Philosophy is words - Ankle deep, and miles wide, in terms of the time they can consume for the human soul on earth...

And then, totally consistent with one who cannot speak straight words about a real God, gives us a practical demonstration of how to form a sentence using words that are all completely meaningless.

And friends, I am glad that Arsenios has made these contributions. Because I promise you, he is one of the more educated and erudite of Christian dualists you are likely to come across. Certainly on this board. But the Calvinists are hardly any better: They ask us to believe that God is good and that he also wills things like the Sandy Hook massacre. And we are not allowed to question this because evil things, like said massacre, are said to be from God's 'hidden decree' and we are not allowed to know about it. Whatever they think of as good or which they think they can pass off as good, they will attribute to God's ordinary will, whilst all the things that embarrass them are said to be from his hidden will. Thus they redefine common words like 'good' and give us bland reassurances such as 'the Sandy Hook massacre had a good purpose in God's plan; we just don't know what God's plan is and have to trust him.' And, as I have said before, they then seek to blame these things on someone else by trying to tell us that God did not actually cause the Sandy Hook massacre (which is why this is sometimes called God's permissive will). They say that it was caused by whoever it was caused by and so they claim that God was not responsible for it, but that it happened in accordance with God's secret will. They redefine the word 'responsibility' so that God is not responsible for what he wills to happen but then they expect us to be responsible for the things which we will to happen. Friends, if we are to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect in the way that Calvinists claim that he is perfect, then doesn't this mean that we also should be able to escape responsibility for all the evils we cause???

The reasons are the same in both cases. They cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that this world is very good. That it is intrinsically good. Or that each moment is a moment of true life. Instead they try to pass off everything we do as imperfect, fallen, sinful or otherwise contaminated in some way. You saw how Arsenios did it. You have seen how Calvinists do it. It's your turn now, who will you believe, them or the Bible?

And God saw all that he had made and behold, it was very good.

 

[Clete]

It isn't subjective. If it were, you would be able to treat this chair as a computer. I thought you already agreed that. What it is, is relational. As I said previously, You may call it a stool, or you may call it an armchair, you could even call it a 'sea of comfort' and I think I would know what you mean; so it is indeed relational, what you call it depends on your particular relationship to it. But you can't call it a computer because it is intrinsically not a computer. Its worth is intrinsic to itself and that is why it constrains you.

Why are you using the words "value" and "worth" in place of "identity"?

A things identity is not subjective, that much is certain. Something is what it is - period. A is A. This is called the Law of Identity. It is the foundation of all knowledge, all communication, all coherent thought. It cannot be denied without the denier acknowledging its veracity in his attempt to deny it. You might say it is the ultimate objective truth. It is the singular truth that makes truth itself meaningful.

What that has to do with whether a thing is valuable or not I still don't see.

In the same way, morality is not objective either. I think I made this clear in an earlier comment. I am not accepting Socrates' horn of the dilemma. Morality is relational just the same. But I will hopefully have time to expand on that in another post.

But the important thing to note, as I have been saying, is that a thing's value is not defined externally. Nor is the state of the universe in any given moment determined by any external rule, force or being. Arsenios wants to go down that route. It only means that he cannot answer direct questions about God. And he uses lovely sounding words like apophatic and cataphatic to give some kind of credibility to his philosophy, but in reality they just mean that he cannot give a rational, coherent justification of his beliefs.
But I have no desire to single him out (and he of course is only parrotting his Orthodox traditions): all hard dualists must suffer from one kind of paradox or another. He is unable to state that God is real, and that to me is the saddest thing - where have we got to, what have we become, if we cannot bring ourselves to make such an obvious statement about the God we are supposed to believe in?
It is no wonder that Christianity falls into meaningless rituals, having lost its motivation, its ethics and finally its very God, and then trying to redefine itself through political activism, cultural richness or social welfare - anything to avoid having to admit to the obvious fact that God is real and that the consequences of this fact are also real. Because, like this chair, God doesn't let you call him a force, or say that he has two wills, or that his actions are arbitrary and because, like this chair, God is manifest to man - through Jesus Christ - and is not hidden so that we have to guess or deduce what kind of being or thing he is but he is directly and tangibly available and no one can say that he is unknowable or that nothing can be said about him.

I understand and agree with everything here except the use of the term "value" (highlighted above).

I totally get that things are what they are because they are real. Is that sufficient to proceed or is this use of the word "value" necessary to the rest of your argument?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Arsenios]

This world is very good.
It is intrinsically good.
Each moment is a moment of true life.

Ever smell a rotting corpse?
Are you 95 and all pain yet?
Or are you still 13 and saving the world?
This fallen world ends in pain and death.

All good, right?

Lord have Mercy!

Arsenios