Are You Are Skeptic or In Denial?

[Kurieuo]

Ken, in your hypothetical theology (given you do not believe in God), could you seriously ever change to be "good enough" for God?

No.

What then of your past wrongs, can you ever remove such from your record?

No

Consider if you believe God is all-good, as you must if you see God ought to desire us to be good also (whcih I agree with you on), then God requires us to really be Good. To the extent that Jesus understood "good" when He declared noone is good by God. If this is true, then wouldn't we all stand condemned?

Unless God either lowers his standards for us due to our imperfections, or he chooses to forgive us, we would be condemned.

God must logically condemn us all, since none of us are really good. We've all done wrong no matter how big or small.

Perhaps then, belief in God or not, we should simply enjoy our lives here since condemnation awaits us all.

I can understand believers, but why would non-believers think condemnation awaits them?

Working with your own hypothetical theology of the way God ought to be (since you consider the one Christians believe in as immoral or something for not making salvation a matter of our own works), of course if a person doesn't believe an all-good God exists then they won't believe condemnation awaits. But, you are the one hypothetically entertaining God's existence and the way He should be as a reason for rejecting the God Christians believe.

I find it interesting that the God you seem to hypothetically entertain to replace the Christian one, is nonetheless one that ought to be good. And then with that, we'd each be unable to attain God's good standard via our own past, present and future actions in life. That then, unless there is another way, we would be condemned.

It is further interesting this other way you present is one of God lowering His standards or forgiving us. For, the God Christians believe in lowered Himself being found in human form (Jesus), associated Himself with humanity and suffered for doing so. God, who I and many other Christians believe in, knew we could never attain His perfectly good standard ourselves, so He took on human form and became the goodness humanity couldn't attain. So that in Him, we humans who are each sinful could be redeemed via His own goodness.

Now Christ's mysterious final act on the cross before giving up his life was, "Father forgive them." Tell me, if Christ being good, fulfilling all demands God's righteousness entails, paid a punishment of death reserved for those who do wrong, then surely rightness demands Christ Himself is owed? I see that Christ is owed something. Yet, Christ's request was to forgive those who aren't righteous, who even put Him to death. What is Righteousness then to do?

In Christ we see God's rightousness pitted against itself in an amazing way, a way that finally allows grace and forgiveness to be had and overflow so that we can be with God, however it is only through Christ. It's like the loophole of loopholes every lawyer dreams of when trying to get their client off the hook. Consider it false if you like, it's a beautiful story and nonetheless a coherent one that I see provides a solution to our predicament with God (given God exists) where none of us are good. If there was a way to be made right with God, who is all-good, then Christianity as I see provides the only logical hope.

Such is also the reason why the Gospels are "good news" (i.e., gospel). For they describe the good news Christ brings, that God who is all-righteous doesn't desire to judge and condemn us, but preferred to offer grace and forgiveness. And they detail how this is supposedly accomplished, and it is in this promise found in Jesus' own teachings and life that Christians hope in. If our hope is in vain, then we all will stand condemned and we're probably to be pitied most in life.

[PaulSacramento]

Not to sound mean but if you can't explain actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing Aquinas' argument

Nils

The differences was that it was explained to you, you simply don't understand it and yet you choose to comment on it.
Much like a person that doesn't understand wave particles commenting on it then then complaining that the person that does can't explain it well enough so that they can understand it, even though the person explained what wave particles are.

You are not the first, or the last, to comment on what they THINK Aquina's means rather than on what HE actually is saying.
Not your fault really since Aquinas is advanced Philosophy and not easy to get.
My issue is that, probably because he was a religious philosopher, people ( skeptics) automatically think his arguments are easily understood and refuted.
They are not.


If you don't understand actuality and potentiality you do not understand movement/change in the sense that Aquinas is talking about and if you don't understand that you simply can't comment (because you haven't grasped) the argument for the Unmoved Mover and Uncaused first Cause.

BUT, if you really want to understand it, we can help BUT at the same time, try to understand that we have been down this road before with other skeptics and, well, we are a little tainted ...

[Byblos]

Not to sound mean but if you can't understand actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on Aquinas...

Sigh....

Do you remember what I wrote a few days ago:
" First, the background to my answer was that I asked Kurieuo: "So which are the reasons that are "obvious"". Byblos answered with a reference to Aquinas. "
Byblos apparently thought that Aquinas' argument was worth mentioning and I got the impression that both Kurieuo and you had the same opinion. But
Either
you agree that the argument is valid and then it is reasonable that you restate it so that it can be understood related to modern physics including definitions that make sense
Or
you say that it is of historical interest only and then I definitely will not bother you with comments on Aquinas.

Not to sound mean but if you can't explain actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing Aquinas' argument

Nils

Okay so benefit of the doubt is in order.

Aquinas' first way has to do with motion. As stated, it is not the standard kind of motion, as in locomotion, nor is it temporal, as is in successive events in time. This is what is called accidentally ordered causal series and have nothing to do with Aquinas' first way. A good example would be my parents had me, my grandparents had my parents, and so on. My grandparents are no longer here but my existence does not depend and theirs, ergo it is an accidentally ordered causal series.

The first way concerns itself with motion as in change from one state to another (from a potential state to an actual state) and with what is termed as essentially ordered causal series, i.e. events (read change) that occur simultaneously. Every link in the chain is essential, otherwise nothing changes. An example is me using a stick to push a rock. The rock is moved by the stick, the stick is moved by my hands, my hands move due to muscle contractions, muscle contractions are moved by brain neurons firing, and the whole series is brought to actuality by a free will decision. The bottom line is, in this kind of essentially ordered causal series a prime mover is necessary, otherwise nothing moves.

Now that's a very simplistic way of explaining the first way but when looking at the argument through that lens, you will see that even if matter and energy (and quarks and quantum field fluctuations, and whatever else you can think of) have always existed, the fact remains that no change occurs unless acted on by a prime mover. And since this essentially ordered causal series cannot have infinite regress (otherwise nothing would change), the argument necessarily concludes in a prime mover, moved by no other.

[abelcainsbrother]

Ken, in your hypothetical theology (given you do not believe in God), could you seriously ever change to be "good enough" for God?

No.

What then of your past wrongs, can you ever remove such from your record?

No

Consider if you believe God is all-good, as you must if you see God ought to desire us to be good also (whcih I agree with you on), then God requires us to really be Good. To the extent that Jesus understood "good" when He declared noone is good by God. If this is true, then wouldn't we all stand condemned?

Unless God either lowers his standards for us due to our imperfections, or he chooses to forgive us, we would be condemned.

God must logically condemn us all, since none of us are really good. We've all done wrong no matter how big or small.

Perhaps then, belief in God or not, we should simply enjoy our lives here since condemnation awaits us all.

I can understand believers, but why would non-believers think condemnation awaits them?

Ken,Jesus suffered and died to save sinners not perfect people.And the god you entertain are already everywhere for you to believe in one that will lower his standards for you and just forgive you.This is what all other gods are like Kenny.They are based on works and if you live a good enough life you can save yourself and God will just overlook all of the sins you've comitted.But see,I could not choose a god like that over Jesus and all other gods are like that.They are not Holy gods and thus not a god I could serve and believe in.I would not serve a god that is not Holy and that just overlooks sin because if you went to that heaven it would be no different than this evil world we live in.No,no sin is going to mess up heaven where I go and I'm glad about that.

[PaulSacramento]

Not to sound mean but if you can't understand actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on Aquinas...

Sigh....

Do you remember what I wrote a few days ago:
" First, the background to my answer was that I asked Kurieuo: "So which are the reasons that are "obvious"". Byblos answered with a reference to Aquinas. "
Byblos apparently thought that Aquinas' argument was worth mentioning and I got the impression that both Kurieuo and you had the same opinion. But
Either
you agree that the argument is valid and then it is reasonable that you restate it so that it can be understood related to modern physics including definitions that make sense
Or
you say that it is of historical interest only and then I definitely will not bother you with comments on Aquinas.

Not to sound mean but if you can't explain actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing Aquinas' argument

Nils

Okay so benefit of the doubt is in order.

Aquinas' first way has to do with motion. As stated, it is not the standard kind of motion, as in locomotion, nor is it temporal, as is in successive events in time. This is what is called accidentally ordered causal series and have nothing to do with Aquinas' first way. A good example would be my parents had me, my grandparents had my parents, and so on. My grandparents are no longer here but my existence does not depend and theirs, ergo it is an accidentally ordered causal series.

The first way concerns itself with motion as in change from one state to another (from a potential state to an actual state) and with what is termed as essentially ordered causal series, i.e. events (read change) that occur simultaneously. Every link in the chain is essential, otherwise nothing changes. An example is me using a stick to push a rock. The rock is moved by the stick, the stick is moved by my hands, my hands move due to muscle contractions, muscle contractions are moved by brain neurons firing, and the whole series is brought to actuality by a free will decision. The bottom line is, in this kind of essentially ordered causal series a prime mover is necessary, otherwise nothing moves.

Now that's a very simplistic way of explaining the first way but when looking at the argument through that lens, you will see that even if matter and energy (and quarks and quantum field fluctuations, and whatever else you can think of) have always existed, the fact remains that no change occurs unless acted on by a prime mover. And since this essentially ordered causal series cannot have infinite regress (otherwise nothing would change), the argument necessarily concludes in a prime mover, moved by no other.

I would just add that way doesn't state that EVERYTHING moves or changes or has a cause, only that somethings do.

[Kenny]

Ken, in your hypothetical theology (given you do not believe in God), could you seriously ever change to be "good enough" for God?

No.

What then of your past wrongs, can you ever remove such from your record?

No

Consider if you believe God is all-good, as you must if you see God ought to desire us to be good also (whcih I agree with you on), then God requires us to really be Good. To the extent that Jesus understood "good" when He declared noone is good by God. If this is true, then wouldn't we all stand condemned?

Unless God either lowers his standards for us due to our imperfections, or he chooses to forgive us, we would be condemned.

God must logically condemn us all, since none of us are really good. We've all done wrong no matter how big or small.

Perhaps then, belief in God or not, we should simply enjoy our lives here since condemnation awaits us all.

I can understand believers, but why would non-believers think condemnation awaits them?

Working with your own hypothetical theology of the way God ought to be (since you consider the one Christians believe in as immoral or something for not making salvation a matter of our own works), of course if a person doesn't believe an all-good God exists then they won't believe condemnation awaits. But, you are the one hypothetically entertaining God's existence and the way He should be as a reason for rejecting the God Christians believe.

I find it interesting that the God you seem to hypothetically entertain to replace the Christian one, is nonetheless one that ought to be good. And then with that, we'd each be unable to attain God's good standard via our own past, present and future actions in life. That then, unless there is another way, we would be condemned.

Actually the God of my hypothetical was the God Christians believe. I can understand the misunderstanding because when I listed all the scenarios that would not lead to condemnation, I listed God lowering his standards which isn something the Christian God wouldn’t do. So I can see why it would appear I was referring to another Deity.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

All Christians believe in an All knowing, All powerful God Ken.
So your view(s) are not consistent with that.

[Byblos]

Kenny is once again fashioning a golden calf.

[Kenny]

All Christians believe in an All knowing, All powerful God Ken.
So your view(s) are not consistent with that.

Who said anything about all knowing or all powerful? that wasn't even a part of the conversation

K

[abelcainsbrother]

All Christians believe in an All knowing, All powerful God Ken.
So your view(s) are not consistent with that.

Who said anything about all knowing or all powerful? that wasn't even a part of the conversation

K

When I'm dealing with muslims one of the questions I like to ask is,What did Allah do about man's sin?Because I know he did absolutely nothing about sin.He seems like the kind of god you entertained though.

[Kenny]

All Christians believe in an All knowing, All powerful God Ken.
So your view(s) are not consistent with that.

Who said anything about all knowing or all powerful? that wasn't even a part of the conversation

K

When I'm dealing with muslims one of the questions I like to ask is,What did Allah do about man's sin?Because I know he did absolutely nothing about sin.He seems like the kind of god you entertained though.

No; the type of God I would prefer would be the kind that rewards you for your works (good behavior) rather than belief.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

All Christians believe in an All knowing, All powerful God Ken.
So your view(s) are not consistent with that.

Who said anything about all knowing or all powerful? that wasn't even a part of the conversation

K

When I'm dealing with muslims one of the questions I like to ask is,What did Allah do about man's sin?Because I know he did absolutely nothing about sin.He seems like the kind of god you entertained though.

No; the type of God I would prefer would be the kind that rewards you for your works (good behavior) rather than belief.

Ken

Allah does that according to muslims and all false gods do just what you just explained.This is why there is really not much difference between Jehovah Witnesses and Islam when it comes to salvation based on your good works.They just define what good works you should do differently but the principle of salvation by good works is there in both and that you will be rewarded for your good works while they sin just like the rest of us,mind you.

[Kenny]

All Christians believe in an All knowing, All powerful God Ken.
So your view(s) are not consistent with that.

Who said anything about all knowing or all powerful? that wasn't even a part of the conversation

K

When I'm dealing with muslims one of the questions I like to ask is,What did Allah do about man's sin?Because I know he did absolutely nothing about sin.He seems like the kind of god you entertained though.

No; the type of God I would prefer would be the kind that rewards you for your works (good behavior) rather than belief.

Ken

Allah does that according to muslims and all false gods do just what you just explained.This is why there is really not much difference between Jehovah Witnesses and Islam when it comes to salvation based on your good works.They just define what good works you should do differently but the principle of salvation by good works is there in both and that you will be rewarded for your good works while they sin just like the rest of us,mind you.

Yeah but if you are rewarded for your works (good behavior) at least you have motivation for being a better person; where as being rewarded for faith and belief, heck even Hitler believed; though his victims did not.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Who said anything about all knowing or all powerful? that wasn't even a part of the conversation

K

When I'm dealing with muslims one of the questions I like to ask is,What did Allah do about man's sin?Because I know he did absolutely nothing about sin.He seems like the kind of god you entertained though.

No; the type of God I would prefer would be the kind that rewards you for your works (good behavior) rather than belief.

Ken

Allah does that according to muslims and all false gods do just what you just explained.This is why there is really not much difference between Jehovah Witnesses and Islam when it comes to salvation based on your good works.They just define what good works you should do differently but the principle of salvation by good works is there in both and that you will be rewarded for your good works while they sin just like the rest of us,mind you.

Yeah but if you are rewarded for your works (good behavior) at least you have motivation for being a better person; where as being rewarded for faith and belief, heck even Hitler believed; though his victims did not.

Ken

Why would I choose that over free salvation though that Jesus offers?Jesus said I will give you rest and I prefer rest myself because of what he did,not what I do.

[Kurieuo]

I'm actually perplexed by your last posts, both Kenny's and Abe's.

Don't you both realise it is taught in Scripture that people will be rewarded for good done in their lives (given your Christian upbringing Kenny, I'd expect you might be familiar with such teachings). However, the first hurdle to be overcome is being made right with God who we all seem to intuitively think would be all-good, righteous and fair.

As you essentially said previously Kenny, all of us have done wrong, so then God would not be truly good and righteous if He did not condemn us all. The only solution I can see to this predicament of ours, is a solution like I described in my previous post that is said to be on offer in Christ. Something that squashes our wrongs and allows forgiveness to overflow from God rather than holding us accountable for our actions and condemning us all. There is no other form of Theism I see which provides a solution to this dilemma we're in than Christianity.

So then, this first hurdle to overcome is merely being saved from rightful condemnation. We Christians understand that this is dealt with by Christ -- such is understood in Christianity as "salvation" (we're saved from God's righteous judgement). The Way to being saved, just being able to come to God and be accepted, is through Christ. If a person doesn't receive this, then it really doesn't matter what good they may have done for any wrong condemns them.

Yet, to those who are saved, then Scripture does talk of some being rewarded more than others for what they did in their lives. Some will be honoured more than others.