GRGR(3) - Determinism

[David Morris]

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 06:03:12 -0400
From: Paul Mackin <>
Subject: Re:

David wrote:

>> But back to the Determinate's God:
>> Start with a singular Moral Omnipotent & Omniscient God (MO&OG)
>> who has constructed a formula for salvation, a way by which
>> those damned may cross over into the realm of those saved.

>Well, I'd put it the other way around. We start with the hope
>of somehow overcoming the mortality of our natural human existence,
>then some religious genius like Saint Paul cobbles together that
>rather beautiful imagery of god, his son and son's brothers quoted
>yesterday to frame that hope.

The Preordained Preterite vs. Saved is a construct promoted by Calvin which
has its root in writings of "Saint" Paul, who was himself a radical
religious-revolutionary who really can be credited with opening Judaism to
the Pagan world, thus "inventing" Christianity.  It was the (IL)LOGIC of
this Preterite/Saved construct that I was getting at, not the "chicken/egg"
aspect of God & Man.  Obviously GR takes this dichotomy to examine all
levels of existence, not primarily literally religious, but the root of the
dichotomy bears examination, if for no other reason than its heavy weight
upon Western Civilization.

>>A central problem here would be the
>>existence of evil, which an MO&OG God would have to be allowing
>>to exist, actually would have to have purposefully created to be
>>so.  Equally problematic would be the existence of a Preterite,
>>also ultimately of his creation.  Perhaps He has created a stage,
>>an arena for us to perfume for his pleasure.  A moral God would have
>>to make the formula for salvation in this arena so easy and so obvious
>>that NO ONE could miss it.  But, if he were truly MO&OG, our needing
>>salvation could not be possible.

>It seems to me that the question of divine existence or divine morality
>is secondary.  Personally I relegate them to nonquestions.

Again, I think you've missed essence of this post, which is an examination
of the construct, not its literal truth.  It's the construct which can be
applied as a frame to down-to-earth realities.  Calling into question the
validity of the categories of the argument was the point here.

>The important consideration is the possibility of  salvation
>itself regardless of how it might be achieved. Pynchon seems
>to be saying there is no possibility of it when a voice says
>early on 'you never thought you'd be saved' or something to that
>effect.

Here I think you're selling the book far short.  A search is underway, one
which you've decided is pointless, except for its entertainment value,
viewed from the sidelines.  I think its more fruitful to jump in with both
feet, dig in, assuming, at least temporarily, that ANYTHING is possible.

>To me and other nonbelievers this is only stating
>the obvious. The Pincher is always stating the obvious. It's
>just that he does it so well.

THAT'S what I mean by selling the book short.

>Of course I may be completely full of shit. :-)

ANYTHING'S possible.  ;-)

David Morris