Theism is Rational; Christianity is Not

  • Thread starter Thread starter aristotle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cathgal said:
You think you’re the only one who doesn’t believe in unicorns and fairies ?!
Click to expand...
I think it’s admirable that some people do. I find them romantic. Almost romantic enough to believe in.

The only reason I mentioned faries is as a reference to a quote from GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy that goes something like: “Naturalists are the true slaves because, whereas I can believe in faries, they cannot.”
More evidence?

Why don’t you tell us how little you know and we’ll go from here…
Click to expand...
I know very very very very very very very little.

But I can be more specific if you name the topic. If it’s neurosurgery, I’m doomed.
 
aristotle said:
…
God creates and intervenes by attraction.
Click to expand...
I see you have read some philosophy, but apparently no theology.

No matter. You espouse a deity that does the personal act of creating, but then acts as if an impersonal force of some kind. Make up your mind: is this god of yours personal, or impersonal? Does this god act, or merely passively influence? (One more thing: God repels, rather than attracting, sin.)

As for your definition, well, general definitions are not helpful in technical fields. If you want to discuss the nature of god, best to gen up on the technical meanings of the terms, not the general usage ones. It turns out Oxford is all over the map. The Concise Dictionary, for theism, gives, “belief in the existance of a god supernaturally revealed to man and sustaining a personal relationship with his creatures.” You’ll have to do better than mere general dictionary definitions to engage in a discussion on the nature of God.

There are three theistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All agree that God is personal, infinite, distinct from his creation, and intervenes in it, though in Islam, only to a very limited degree, bordering on deism. The notion that God acts as a force is pantheistic, not theistic.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
aristotle said:
The only reason I mentioned faries is as a reference to a quote from GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy that goes something like: “Naturalists are the true slaves because, whereas I can believe in faries, they cannot.”
Click to expand...
Oh sure! Better I believe in fairies than being true slaves!
I know very very very very very very very little.

But I can be more specific if you name the topic. If it’s neurosurgery, I’m doomed.
Click to expand...
Ok, here’s a simple one.

What’s the purpose of your existence?
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
I see you have read some philosophy, but apparently no theology.
Click to expand...
Only the writings of Aquinas, pretty-much (and then only his commentary on Aristotle and the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles, and none of them in Latin). I think he is very intelligent, but I don’t accept all his premises. I won’t bend to faith in divine revelation. But most of the rest of it, what can be gleaned from reason and observation, I agree with, though in a very qualified way.
Make up your mind: is this god of yours personal, or impersonal? Does this god act, or merely passively influence?
Click to expand...
All this God does is act, and Its only act is thought, thinking Itself. It does not act upon us, except in the sense that a cookie acts upon me when I am hungry, to attract me to it.
(One more thing: God repels, rather than attracting, sin.)
Click to expand...
But this itself is an attraction of what is good, for sin would be evil, and what is evil is nothing (absence of the effect of God), so in attracting all, God is repelling evil also. This theological argument, however, I reject, but I would expect it to be relatively orthodox.
If you want to discuss the nature of god, best to gen up on the technical meanings of the terms, not the general usage ones.
Click to expand...
This is the definition that can also be found in the Dictionary for Ancient Greek Philosophy (Apostle), in the Dictionary for Modern Philosophy (Howard Caygill / Kant’s Dictionary), and the Dictionary for Existential Philosophy (Haim Gordon).

Where do you find your definition? And why should I be bound to it?
The notion that God acts as a force is pantheistic, not theistic.
Click to expand...
I respectfully must state that our argument is a matter of semantics. As such, you may well call me “pantheistic”. I will choose to continue to call myself “theistic”, until it can be shown that my definition conflicts with the common definition.
 
cathgal said:
Ok, here’s a simple one.

What’s the purpose of your existence?
Click to expand...
To be happy.

This is attained by living a virtuous life, a life attracted toward by my desires, ultimately by my desire to be like God.
 
cathgal said:
That’s it !?
Click to expand...
In so many words, yes. Happiness not in the American fast-food sense, but in a sense of being content, of having true friends, of being a productive member of society, of living in moderation, of practicing where one has skill.
What is a desire to be like God like?
Click to expand...
As God thinks, so we should think, and the most God-like thing to do is to think of God. Beyond this, living an active life, with activity in moderation (too much of what is termed activity can be a waste of what is physical or of the mental; or of activity in the right time, in the right way, for the right reason).

The body cannot help but complete its purpose, which is found in death (and all physical bodies in destruction).

The soul, if it is vegitable or animal, cannot but complete its purpose because it is driven only by desire. And some will, only by chance, meet their purpose better or worse.

The soul, if it is rational, can choose a more or less complete life, to a degree. Some aspects (disability, poor family, no family, inborn intelligence, etc.) are out of one’s control, but other aspects (what we do with what we have) are.
 
aristotle said:
Excellent question. God is like gravity, in the sense that both are attractive forces. God is not like gravity in that gravity requires a potential, and cannot exist without such a potential. Also, gravity is a property of things, and not a thing in itself.

Magnetic fields do no work, but they are properties of objects with potential, also.

Also, God is not like gravity in that God is intelligent; God is thought thinking Itself.

It would be better,then,to not liken God too much to a force which has no intelligence.

Because there are limits to what I can become.

What does that have to do woth God?

But God draws much that exists from nothing by attraction. So nothing is potentially anything.

Why not just say that God creates the universe out of nothing,or chaos? The word “attraction” just makes God a non-intelligent gravitational force.
Click to expand...
 
God is intelligent, but only thinks of God. God only can think of God. To think of anything else, is to think of something less than could be thought. And God has no unworthy thoughts.

So God only moves the rest of the world by attraction, and in this sense seems only a force. But God is thinking. Just, never directly about us.
 
aristotle said:
God is intelligent, but only thinks of God. God only can think of God. To think of anything else, is to think of something less than could be thought. And God has no unworthy thoughts.

So God only moves the rest of the world by attraction, and in this sense seems only a force. But God is thinking. Just, never directly about us.
Click to expand...
Aristotle, I’m not sure I understand your reasoning. Perphaps you can better explain to me this attraction in laymen’s terms. If God can only think of God, then wouldn’t that Idea or Logos be perfect as well? If that Logos is indeed perfect, then it must be Infinite. And the only one whom is Infinite is God. Therefore it is possible for God to have a Son–a Second Person within His Godhood.
 
aristotle said:
In so many words, yes. Happiness not in the American fast-food sense, but in a sense of being content, of having true friends, of being a productive member of society, of living in moderation, of practicing where one has skill.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s your definition of happiness, but others may not agree.
As God thinks, so we should think, and the most God-like thing to do is to think of God.
Click to expand...
God thinks? How does God thinks? Do you know how God thinks??
Beyond this, living an active life, with activity in moderation (too much of what is termed activity can be a waste of what is physical or of the mental; or of activity in the right time, in the right way, for the right reason).
Click to expand...
Again, relative.
The body cannot help but complete its purpose, which is found in death (and all physical bodies in destruction).

The soul, if it is vegitable or animal, cannot but complete its purpose because it is driven only by desire. And some will, only by chance, meet their purpose better or worse.

The soul, if it is rational, can choose a more or less complete life, to a degree. Some aspects (disability, poor family, no family, inborn intelligence, etc.) are out of one’s control, but other aspects (what we do with what we have) are.
Click to expand...
So death is the end, huh?

That’s all you know about your existence?? That’s pathetic!

I strongly encourage you to believe in fairies.
 
aristotle said:
…
All this God does is act, and Its only act is thought, thinking Itself. It does not act upon us, except in the sense that a cookie acts upon me when I am hungry, to attract me to it.
…
Click to expand...
Thankfully, I know nothing of this “God”, except that this “God” is quite unlike the God who revealed himself in human history.

Have fun. I have no desire to discuss with someone who wants to pretend that the discipline of theology does not exist, and have what purports to be a meaningful discussion on theology without reference to the discipline. That’s not even good philosophy.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
aristotle said:
God is intelligent, but only thinks of God. God only can think of God. To think of anything else, is to think of something less than could be thought. And God has no unworthy thoughts.

So God only moves the rest of the world by attraction, and in this sense seems only a force. But God is thinking. Just, never directly about us.
Click to expand...
An intelligent God who is aloof,completely self-regarding and self-absorbed? A God that never thinks about the universe that came about because of him and depends on him,and intelligent humans who think about him? That’s just the God-concept of the Greek philosophers. And how is the universe something less,or unworthy,than could be thought by God,who is thought itself?

And what would be the nature of the attraction that moves the universe?
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
As for your definition, well, general definitions are not helpful in technical fields. If you want to discuss the nature of god, best to gen up on the technical meanings of the terms, not the general usage ones. It turns out Oxford is all over the map. The Concise Dictionary, for theism, gives, “belief in the existance of a god supernaturally revealed to man and sustaining a personal relationship with his creatures.” You’ll have to do better than mere general dictionary definitions to engage in a discussion on the nature of God.

There are three theistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All agree that God is personal, infinite, distinct from his creation, and intervenes in it, though in Islam, only to a very limited degree, bordering on deism. The notion that God acts as a force is pantheistic, not theistic.
Click to expand...
To be accurate, you appear to be referring to specifically classical theism, rather than just the term “theism” in general.
 
KarenNC said:
To be accurate, you appear to be referring to specifically classical theism, rather than just the term “theism” in general.
Click to expand...
To be accurate, I’m using the term as it is used in theology.

GH
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
All said problems arise by considering the text in isolation, apart from the Tradition of the Church. It’s a protestant problem, not a Catholic one. Still, it’s not de fide.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
I searched on the terms and came across the following:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9802qq.asp

“It is certainly true that some historians have doubts. Some historians have doubts about any historical event, and some are especially eager to disbelieve events recorded in Scripture. That doesn’t mean they have any evidence against what Scripture says. It is no surprise that there is no record of a census since there is no record of most events from this time. We don’t have Rome’s governmental archives. The historical records for things such as a census are spotty. (Of course, what your television show meant is “there is no record apart from Luke.” Luke is a record, but they are discounting it, despite the fact that Luke’s book of Acts is the work of a fine historian.) In short, the argument from silence proves nothing.”

Would you say that this reflects accurately the teaching of Tradition or is there additional information?
 
KarenNC said:
I searched on the terms and came across the following:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9802qq.asp

“It is certainly true that some historians have doubts. Some historians have doubts about any historical event, and some are especially eager to disbelieve events recorded in Scripture. That doesn’t mean they have any evidence against what Scripture says. It is no surprise that there is no record of a census since there is no record of most events from this time. We don’t have Rome’s governmental archives. The historical records for things such as a census are spotty. (Of course, what your television show meant is “there is no record apart from Luke.” Luke is a record, but they are discounting it, despite the fact that Luke’s book of Acts is the work of a fine historian.) In short, the argument from silence proves nothing.”

Would you say that in your experience this reflects accurately the teaching of Tradition or is there additional information?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top