First Contact: A Different Order Of Reality

[tafan2]

I am approaching this objectively. If you refuse to see any possibility of knowing other than through the lens of what you already believe to be true and refuse to approach it objectively then you are basically saying that it is impossible for an outsider to judge the information objectively and arrive at the belief that Jesus is Christ without first believing in Judaism.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true.

No, I am not saying an outsider has to first follow Judaism. I am saying, if you want to walk someone through the faith, starting with the first cause, you cannot jump from there and convince him the first divine revelation was the incarnation of Jesus. It makes no sense. Why would God completely ignore the human race for so long and then just jump into their mist?

The second thing I am saying is that the line of argument is dishonest. Why would we want to “objectively approach” someone outside the faith with a scenario we know is a lie, simply because we think (wrongly IMO) that it will be easier for him to come to believe a lie, and once he does we will spring the truth on him. That is exactly what you are proposing.

 

[IWantGod]

That is exactly what you are proposing.

That was never my intention.

My intention was to have a fun objective look at the possibility of first contact, making no assumptions of faith, with the uncaused cause and when that might of occurred according to objective evidence if at all. I see i made the mistake of calling Jesus Christ first contact because i thought of it as the most credible evidence of contact involving many groups of people including Romans etc (including the report that Christ walked among us), which has lead this conversation down this path. But i didn’t think of it as a big deal because i wasn’t actually teaching as a christian that this was first contact, but approaching it as an outsider would. Of course i am no expert.

Anyway are you interested in forwarding the conversation. What do you think is the most credible evidence of contact with the uncaused cause?

 

[tafan2]

Anyway are you interested in forwarding the conversation. What do you think is the most credible evidence of contact with the uncaused cause?

I will try to remember to look tonight at Ronald Knox’s “The Belief of Catholics” where he discusses what we can credibly know about God’s revelation prior to the incarnation (IIRC) and I will get back to you.