Theism is Rational; Christianity is Not

[aristotle]

Before redeeming the mankind Jesus had to come to the world somehow. Being born is quite a reasonable way of coming to the world. It’s impossible without a mother.

Jesus being God is the real impossibility.

I agree, God didn’t use a pen or anything else to write a book, he inspired a Scriptures written with people’s hands.

This I agree with. Though I think he also inspired Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Shakespere, Donne, Spenser, and hundreds of others.

Aristotle’s opinion about God doesn’t matter much for me. Why should it?

Because (1) it’s reasonable, and (2) Aquinas modeled many of his arguments, including his arguments on Trinity, after Aristotle’s God.

Aristotle lived in ancient Greece where people invented man-like gods and he had no idea about Father, Son and Holy Spirit…

Which to me looks like just another man-made god.

People’s image of God can be very different from God’s real image.

What image? Good cannot be perceived.

 

[anthony022071]

If God is complete actuality, of all types, if, in other words, God is infinitely active, then any activity I partake in, anything I do, or say, or make so, any energy I expend, is already represented in God. In that sense, I am already immortal within God, but not in any way where I would be conscious, etc.

Who says God is complete actuality,of all types? That’s just a philosophical concept of a god,or God as a philosophical concept – everything,and yet nothing.

I do not believe in heaven.

If you can believe in the existence of an ideal concept,or a conceptual ideal,there’s no reason you can’t believe in heaven.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Theism is Rational; Christianity is Not

I completely agree. For one, the birth and sacrificial death of jesus does not make any sense.

Like we cant even objectively verify that such a thing ever happened! Much less all those stories about Jesus wielding magic.

And what about all those countless of souls who lived and died without even hearing the names ‘jesus’, ‘moses’, & ‘abraham’. no sense, no sense at all.

 

[aristotle]

Who says God is complete actuality,of all types? That’s just a philosophical concept of a god,or God as a philosophical concept – everything,and yet nothing.

It follows from demonstration. I will start a post about this.

If you can believe in the existence of an ideal concept,or a conceptual ideal,there’s no reason you can’t believe in heaven.

I entirely agree. But there is also no reason I should believe in Heaven either.

 

[anthony022071]

Jesus being God is the real impossibility.

It isn’t impossible,unless you think that God is impotent to intervene in human history and to become a man. But a God that cannot communicate with the world and intervene in history is not even God. You may as well just be talking about empty space. Why even assign the name of God to an entity that you think is impotent to communicate or intervene? Which is the greater insult to the intelligence? a God that loves mankind and becomes a man out of love for man,or a God who thinks but is incapable of thinking about man,incapable of love,of communication,of intervention?

Because (1) it’s reasonable, and (2) Aquinas modeled many of his arguments, including his arguments on Trinity, after Aristotle’s God.

Aristotle’s god is reasonable in a very limited way. It is merely an ideal philosophical concept of a god. It can be talked about like a mere object,but it does not speak for itself,and has nothing to say.

Aquinas was not a believer in Aristotle’s god.

 

[anthony022071]

It follows from demonstration. I will start a post about this.

How do you demonstrate that God is complete actuality,of all types? All you can demostrate is your philosophical concept of a God. What good is a god that is constructed,and only exists in one’s head as a concept?

I entirely agree. But there is also no reason I should believe in Heaven either.

What are you agreeing with? Do you believe in the existence of ideal concepts or conceptual ideals,or no? Do you understand them to be only in one’s heads,or do you understand them to exist outside of the head?

We experience a foretaste of heaven and of hell here on earth.

 

[aristotle]

It isn’t impossible,unless you think that God is impotent to intervene in human history and to become a man.

Not only impotent, but uninterested.

But a God that cannot communicate with the world and intervene in history is not even God. You may as well just be talking about empty space. Why even assign the name of God to an entity that you think is impotent to communicate or intervene?

Because the Greeks did, and that is my homage to them.

In the way you may mean God, I would be an atheist. I do not accept the god you accept. God, as I see It, is an intelligent force that is uninterested in our existence.

Aquinas was not a believer in Aristotle’s god.

This much we can definitely agree upon.

 

[roman6320]

I entirely agree. But there is also no reason I should believe in Heaven either.

Actually there is at least one very good reason. If there were no Heaventhen all of humanity’s acts, all concepts of good and evil, all of a person’s striving to be something more than just a physical entity that existsa for a few decades, is utterly meaningless. I think it is absurd that Hitler and Aquinas would wind up going to the same place after death, that is nowhere.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I think it is absurd that Hitler and Aquinas would wind up going to the same place after death, that is nowhere.

Life is not fair to being with.

At least hitler died a miserable man and was immortalized in infamy.

 

[aristotle]

Why must meaning in life be contingent on an afterlife?

Hitler was evil, he failed to attain his purpose, but rather fell into vice, the vices of power and murder.

Aquinas was good, he attained much of his purpose, which was to study God as best as he knew, write, and spread good moral rule.

One can tell by the effect these people had on their own lives, how their lives ended, and how they impacted the lives of others. Also, by the nature of their friends.

Virtue, just as in many other teleological qualities, is found in moderation.

That both of them died and so now no longer exist as Aquinas and Hitler, and so aren’t in Heaven/Hell is not absurd. What seems to me to be absurd is if Hitler were to make a sincere confession and end up in purgatory, and eventually in heaven.

Virtue isn’t important for the sake of our happiness in the next life, but rather in this one. Some people cannot live truly virtuous lives, because of mental problems, poverty, or sickness. This may not seem fair, but to say that suggests any flaw in nature is anthropomorphizing nature.

 

[aristotle]

Life is not fair to being with.

At least hitler died a miserable man and was immortalized in infamy.

Exactly my point.

Thank you.

 

[anthony022071]

Not only impotent, but uninterested.

What kind of god is that? Is an impotent,uninterested god even worthy of the name? How is it that an eternal,living,good god that thinks can be impotent and uninterested?

Because the Greeks did, and that is my homage to them.

Wht not question the Greeks?

In the way you may mean God, I would be an atheist. I do not accept the god you accept. God, as I see It, is an intelligent force that is uninterested in our existence.

God must certainly be an intelligent force,but for that very reason,he must also be capable of thinking about that which is other than him,and communicating and intervening. Otherwise,where is the intelligence? where is the force? where is the goodness? Can God be intelligent and not communicate with the world? Can God be an intelligent force and not intervene with the world? Can God be good and not love?

 

[aristotle]

Wht not question the Greeks?

Because in this case it is pointless to do so. One could call the being I accept “Elephant-Head”, and if the Greeks called It that, I would as well. It’s just a term, like “Positron” or “Quark”.

God must certainly be an intelligent force,but for that very reason,he must also be capable of thinking about that which is other than him,and communicating and intervening.

Except if God is the best thing, then all God’s thoughts must be always on the best thing, and the best thing is God. So if God would think about anything but Itself, God wouldn’t be God. This is a contradiction.

Can God be intelligent and not communicate with the world? Can God be an intelligent force and not intervene with the world?

Can God make a rock so big that God can’t move it?

All these questions hold equal interest to me.

Fun questions to ponder, but ultimately, the affirmative makes God less than It is.

 

[anthony022071]

Because in this case it is pointless to do so. One could call the being I accept “Elephant-Head”, and if the Greeks called It that, I would as well. It’s just a term, like “Positron” or “Quark”.

If the name “God” is a matter of little import for what you describe as God,then you don’t even know what it is that you describe.
It’s more like a Platonic Idea or Form of what Aristotle thought was God.

Except if God is the best thing, then all God’s thoughts must be always on the best thing, and the best thing is God. So if God would think about anything but Itself, God wouldn’t be God. This is a contradiction.

It does not follow that God can only think about God. That is an unnecessary limitation on the intelligence of God. God would then be more limited in intelligence than we are. Humans can think about things far higher and greater,and far lower and smaller than humans. What sense does it make to say that the highest intelligence must be limited to thinking about itself? How is it a contradiction for God to think about that which is other and less than God? Is God a self-absorbed thought-bubble? What contradicts what? Does a just man contradict himself when he thinks about an unjust man? Is ?

Can God make a rock so big that God can’t move it?

All these questions hold equal interest to me.

Fun questions to ponder, but ultimately, the affirmative makes God less than It is.

The affirmative of the question of whether God can think about men,love,communicate,intervene does not make God less,it makes God real. A god that cannot do these things is more like an abstraction than a real entity. That may be the kind of god that philosophers can accept,because such a god makes no demands and has nothing to say,and the philosophers can do all the talking,but it is a negligible god.

 

[aristotle]

If the name “God” is a matter of little import for what you describe as God,then you don’t even know what it is that you describe.
It’s more like a Platonic Idea or Form of what Aristotle thought was God.

I know about God, but I do not know God, nor can I. What I know about God goes a bit farther than the Form without matter that Aristotle saw God as. But not much more at all.

To paraphrase the Simpsons, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, even if you called it a stinkblossom.

It does not follow that God can only think about God. That is an unnecessary limitation on the intelligence of God.

Instead of talking of thinking, let’s talk about another action.

Imagine the perfect person. Now a perfect person should be unlimited, except by his nature. But his nature would seem to be better, if it would not limit him at all. So a perfect person should be able to murder babies, or so it seems.

Really, what makes a person better is the limitations this person has placed by his virtue. He would be even better if the limitations came from his nature.

God’s nature, being perfect (actual, complete, etc.) must be ultimately limited. We could use the word “sin”, but just as an example (I don’t accept that sin, but rather that vice, exists). God cannot dwell on sin, and this is a limitation. This limitation (not being able to dwell on what is ultimately nothing: less than God) is a strength, not a weakness. The greatest strength is that God can think only of God. For anything else would contain some privation (or, if you wish, sin).

God would then be more limited in intelligence than we are.

Just like the naturally perfect human would be more limited in action than we are.

Very interesting questions and statements. But the most interesting for the end…

The affirmative of the question of whether God can think about men,love,communicate,intervene does not make God less,it makes God real. A god that cannot do these things is more like an abstraction than a real entity. That may be the kind of god that philosophers can accept,because such a god makes no demands and has nothing to say,and the philosophers can do all the talking,but it is a negligible god.

I find Aristotle’s God very empowering. Much more, currently, than I find the Christian God.

But there are some points here that I am going to need to reflect upon, such as the “God-as-abstraction” statement, and the first sentence in the above quote, a truly powerful statement.

Give me some time to think, and I’ll get back to you on that.

 

[cathgal]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. What are you asking the basis of? Who is doing what his/her heart desires? Happiness is that which results from the virtuous life; I don’t remember giving a “way” or “method” for that life.

So why isn’t everyone leading a virtuous life if that’s what happiness mean?

It is impossible to understand God’s thinking entirely, or to become like God is entirely. We must become our ideal, which is closer to God than we are now, but not identical to God.

You’re like the rest who believes there is a god, but don’t personally know that god, hence, you only have your idea of what that god is like.

If God is complete actuality, of all types, if, in other words, God is infinitely active, then any activity I partake in, anything I do, or say, or make so, any energy I expend, is already represented in God. In that sense, I am already immortal within God, but not in any way where I would be conscious, etc.

Your idea of a god?

I do not believe in heaven.

Not surprising. Your ‘idea’ is finite after all.

I want to believe in faeries. Help me with my unbelief

I can’t but there is one who can…just pray to that one God for your unbelief.

 

[cathgal]

I know about God, but I do not know God, nor can I.

Of course you can. Is your mind open wide enough.

 

[aristotle]

So why isn’t everyone leading a virtuous life if that’s what happiness mean?

Ignorance, rationalization, or viscous habits, bad upbringing, and often ultimately their own fault (weak or contrary will).

You’re like the rest who believes there is a god, but don’t personally know that god, hence, you only have your idea of what that god is like.

I do not personally know Paris Hilton. I know to a degree what she is like. I can even find out on Wikipedia.

Not surprising. Your ‘idea’ is finite after all.

Infinity is a weakness God does without.

 

[cathgal]

Ignorance, rationalization, or viscous habits, bad upbringing, and often ultimately their own fault (weak or contrary will).

You’ve forgotten that not everyone borne has the privilege to be happy, so the purpose to exist is to be happy is dubious.

I do not personally know Paris Hilton. I know to a degree what she is like. I can even find out on Wikipedia.

…but I’m not talking about creatures like us.

Infinity is a weakness God does without.

Your ‘idea’ ?

I’m not interested in your ‘idea’ about God as much as, say, Buddhism or Hinduism.

 

[anthony022071]

Instead of talking of thinking, let’s talk about another action.

Imagine the perfect person. Now a perfect person should be unlimited, except by his nature. But his nature would seem to be better, if it would not limit him at all. So a perfect person should be able to murder babies, or so it seems.

Really, what makes a person better is the limitations this person has placed by his virtue. He would be even better if the limitations came from his nature.

God’s nature, being perfect (actual, complete, etc.) must be ultimately limited. We could use the word “sin”, but just as an example (I don’t accept that sin, but rather that vice, exists). God cannot dwell on sin, and this is a limitation. This limitation (not being able to dwell on what is ultimately nothing: less than God) is a strength, not a weakness. The greatest strength is that God can think only of God. For anything else would contain some privation (or, if you wish, sin).

What do you mean by dwelling on sin? God seeing and thinking about sin would not make God less.
If there is limitation in God,it is self-willed,because God is good.
How would it be a strength for God to think only of God? And how would it be a privation for God to think about anything else? That is not privation,but expansion.

Just like the naturally perfect human would be more limited in action than we are.

A more perfect human would not necessarily be more limited.
When a person becomes more perfect in virtue and morality,he becomes more free and brave in certain actions than he could ever be if he had not become more perfect. For example,a saint like St. Francis who gives up all his money and worldly advantages is not afraid of poverty,but embraces it,enjoys a freedom of movement and speech,a spontaneity and bravery that someone more attached to the world can’t enjoy. He isn’t afraid of ridicule or humiliation or persecution. Such a one can speak truth to power fearlessly. Greater virtue can mean greater scope and opportunity and leeway for action.