Classical Theism

I was thinking about the old Classical Theism forum earlier...

I feel like, not so long after the old forum disappeared (this may be just my memory misleading me), politics 'caught fire' and started consuming more of my attention and reading time. Rather than discussing A/T metaphysics, it became all about A/T and other brands of political philosophy. I haven't read that much philosophy or theology apart from that in the intervening time.

Since Wokeness took over in the Anglo-sphere the general cultural/philosophical environment seems to have changed a lot; debating with atheists and sceptics on metaphysics and more religious topics has fallen away, things have gone in a completely different direction.

Now I know a lot more about White Supremacy and White Fragility, about Integralism, CRT, epistemic violence, Foucault, Gramsci, De Maistre, Julius Evola... Hegel and the 'Young Marx'.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

It is my understanding that Anthony Flew converted to deism late in life and said he had never really encountered Aristotle earlier.

This passage from his book "There is a God" however makes me wonder.

In this area I was persuaded above all by the philosopher David Conways argument for God’s existence in his book _The Recovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity, in Quest of Sophia._

The God whose existence is defended by Conway and myself is The God of Aristotle. Conway writes: "In sum, to the Being whom he considered to be the explanation of the world and its broad form, Aristotle ascribed the following attributes: immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence. There is an impressive correspondence between this set of attributes and those traditionally described to God within the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is one that fully justifies us in viewing Aristotle as having had the same divine being in mind as the cause of the world that is the object of worship of these two religions."

Now I admit my knowledge of Aristotle isn’t impressive, but when did Aristotle believe in a God with all of those attributes? And how could one who believes in effectively the same God as the Judeo-Christian tradition worships call himself a deist?

My friend has started a bible study that he holds every week or so; however, it isn't really a "bible study." We discuss philosophical difficulties about Christianity or theism in general. Seeing as I am a recent near-reconvert of Christianity, I am not well informed about all of these issues so I figured I could take his questions here. Pointing me to more indepth resources would be beneficial, if not preferable.:

1. If God knew man would sin, why did He create man?
1a. Why did He make man in general?
1b. If free will doesn't exist, how does that affect your answers to the previous questions (if at all)?
2. If God is so loving, why did he kill so many people in the OT (He is still the same God!)?
2a. Can we reconcile these actions morally?
3. Is it possible to morally justify the harsh and prima facie immoral laws in the OT?
3a. Could you demonstrate that?
4. How do we reconcile the existence of evil and God from a logical and evidential standpoint?
5. How do we reconcile the existnece of hell and God morally from an evidential and/logical standpoint?
5a. Is there biblical support for things like annihilationism or universalism?

That is all for now. Sorry if these are elementary questions, I just don't have solid answers.

Thanks

Teleology has always seemed evident to me. It's the common sense view--beings have metaphysical dispositions and these dispositions aren't arbitrary or random.

Teleology and essentialism go hand in hand. I think the conscious whole we call the human being, or even the conscious whole we call the animal, have persuaded me of some kind of essentialism. And by some kind I mean a sort of Aristotelian top down approach. The fact that matter can be rendered into an irreducible conscious whole, capable of qualia-laden, and rational behavior that outstrips the bare capabilities of its material parts, tells me that there is some organizing principle, something that baptizes the otherwise disparate world-stuff into wholes greater than their parts.

Organizing principle, nature, essence, whatever you call it, is defined by its natural potentials. Humans are rational animals. Find a mature human whose potential for rational thought is somehow thwarted and we call him mentally handicapped, insane, etc. Why? Because there's an expectation of a certain metaphysical disposition, a disposition that humans exclusively engage in, e.g. rational thought. Humans aren't snap shots, nothing is. We know the quiddity of something by the potentials exclusive to it. This is teleology, an aim beyond a being towards a determinate set of potentials.

I am thinking mainly historically involved books, but anything would be fine.

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830827196/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabt1_ycWSFbRKKA8C4

Was probably the most thorough and dense read on the historicity of the Resurrection I've ever come across. NT Wright's the Resurrection of the Son of God is a good work too.