Puzzling over all who claim to feel Christ's presence but do not live like saints

[Neoplatonist]

What an odd admission. Why is it up to someone else to live a saintly life before we can come to know what it means to live one? Why can’t we trust our own counsel? Why would “feeling” Christ’s presence be the determiner of living a saintly life? Mother Teresa lived much of her life with no such feeling or assurance.

Christ said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” He didn’t say you would have a palpable sense of his continual presence.

By the way, you aren’t off the hook merely because a particular directive wasn’t aimed specifically at you. All responsibilities are not relieved merely because one didn’t specifically apply to you at one instance in time.

Whether we were present or not, is, likewise, irrelevant since we have reliable testimony about what Jesus said. Clearly, Jesus was speaking to the Apostles at that moment. That does not logically imply that we cannot share the same Spirit of truth today, but it does mean that without the guidance of the Spirit our fruit judging is going to be prone to error and unreliable. Which is why we are not on our own because we have the magisterium of the Church, Scripture, Tradition, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and reason to guide us.

Triangulation, or rather quintangulation, is a determinably better and more reliable means of finding your place in the journey than relying on “your own counsel.”

OK, this goes in some directions I hadn’t planned, but how do we trust the church if the people of and heading the church do not appear to live as if they really believe themselves in the presence of Christ?

How do we trust that the testimony is reliable if the people telling us what is actually says/means do not appear to live as if they are being guided by the Holy Spirit or live as if they really believe themselves in the presence of Christ?

What is our grounding? The spirit is not whispering in my ear as far as I can tell, to discern when I am right or wrong, and does not appear to be whispering in anyone else’s ear as far as I can tell.

And no, that someone makes it an official proclamation that the Holy Spirit is whispering in their ear is a far cry from assuring me it is true.

 

[davidv]

OK, this goes in some directions I hadn’t planned, but how do we trust the church if the people of and heading the church do not appear to live as if they really believe themselves in the presence of Christ?

How do we trust that the testimony is reliable if the people telling us what is actually says/means do not appear to live as if they are being guided by the Holy Spirit or live as if they really believe themselves in the presence of Christ?

What is our grounding? The spirit is not whispering in my ear as far as I can tell, to discern when I am right or wrong, and does not appear to be whispering in anyone else’s ear as far as I can tell.

And no, that someone makes it an official proclamation that the Holy Spirit is whispering in their ear is a far cry from assuring me it is true.

If you cannot trust the Church, who can you trust?. Certainly not yourself.

 

[Neoplatonist]

If you cannot trust the Church, who can you trust?. Certainly not yourself.

LOL Of course not myself. I thought I was pretty up front about that.

 

[davidv]

LOL Of course not myself. I thought I was pretty up front about that.

So why does sin, even by Church leaders, cause the teachings of the Church to be untrustworthy?

 

[Neoplatonist]

So why does sin, even by Church leaders, cause the teachings of the Church to be untrustworthy?

For the same reason that seeing people speed makes me doubt their claim that the police are tracking them with a radar gun. (If their behavior does not match with their claims, then I have to think they are making the claims for some reason other than because they honestly believe them to be true.)

 

[PRmerger]

So why does sin, even by Church leaders, cause the teachings of the Church to be untrustworthy?

Indeed.

One is making a great mistake if he dismisses the advice* of a fat doctor simply because the doctor is fat.

The doctor may indeed be telling the truth.

That he is fat is irrelevant, right?

*Rx: lose some weight or you will be at risk for hypertension and diabetes.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Indeed.

One is making a great mistake if he dismisses the advice* of a fat doctor simply because the doctor is fat.

The doctor may indeed be telling the truth.

That he is fat is irrelevant, right?

*Rx: lose some weight or you will be at risk for hypertension and diabetes.

Honestly a beautiful, crisp analogy. However, how would we know? What would look different than someone selling a placebo? Do more of the doctor’s patients achieve optimal health than would be achieved at random? Enough to overtake the efficacy rate of a placebo?

If so, who are they and how do we recognize which ones (looping us back to an earlier point in the thread)?

 

[PRmerger]

Honestly a beautiful, crisp analogy. However, how would we know?

We know from looking at the data. We don’t look at who delivers the advice.

We evaluate the advice based on its conformity to truth.

What would look different than someone selling a placebo? Do more of the doctor’s patients achieve optimal health than would be achieved at random? Enough to overtake the efficacy rate of a placebo?

If so, who are they and how do we recognize which ones (looping us back to an earlier point in the thread)?

The above questions are irrelevant.

If you dismiss a fat doctor’s advice to lose weight based solely on the fact that she is fat herself, you put yourself in grave danger. You put yourself at risk for hypertension and diabetes.

You do see how that would be…quite stupid, right, to say, “This doctor doesn’t know what she’s talking about because she’s fat. I don’t need to lose weight. Being overweight does not put me at risk for diabetes and hypertension. How do I know that? Why, because a fat doctor told me so. Clearly, she can’t be right since she’s fat.”

 

[Neoplatonist]

We know from looking at the data. We don’t look at who delivers the advice.

We evaluate the advice based on its conformity to truth.

The above questions are irrelevant.

If you dismiss a fat doctor’s advice to lose weight based solely on the fact that she is fat herself, you put yourself in grave danger. You put yourself at risk for hypertension and diabetes.

You do see how that would be…quite stupid, right, to say, “This doctor doesn’t know what she’s talking about because she’s fat. I don’t need to lose weight. Being overweight does not put me at risk for diabetes and hypertension. How do I know that? Why, because a fat doctor told me so. Clearly, she can’t be right since she’s fat.”

http://media.tumblr.com/5def731f586c95ee98aa251d329d30f2/tumblr_inline_ndkiceKxpS1r79k32.gif

Right, which data again? In what area do these fat doctors show results among the patients (I clarified that before, but it got passed over) that are higher than crystal healers and placebos? I’m perfectly willing to consider the fat doctor himself as just one of his (own) patients.

 

[PRmerger]

Right, which data again? In what area do these fat doctors show results among the patients (I clarified that before, but it got passed over) that are higher than crystal healers and placebos? I’m perfectly willing to consider the fat doctor himself as just one of his (own) patients.

Sorry. I am not understanding your point vis a vis fat doctors and their patients.

Are you saying you want data which limns how successful patients of fat doctors are at losing weight?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry. I am not understanding your point vis a vis fat doctors and their patients.

Are you saying you want data which limns how successful patients of fat doctors are at losing weight?

Incidentally, Neoplatonist, are we agreed that the doctor’s weight is IRRELEVANT to her advice?

Either the patient is at risk for health problems due to his weight, or the doctor is incorrect.

The doctor’s weight, just like her eye color, the number of children she has, whether she’s divorced and remarried, Catholic, atheist, born in Timbuktu, unimmunized, or missing a toe, has nothing to do with the advice she’s giving.

We are agreed on this, yes?

 

[Neoplatonist]

Incidentally, Neoplatonist, are we agreed that the doctor’s weight is IRRELEVANT to her advice?

Either the patient is at risk for health problems due to his weight, or the doctor is incorrect.

The doctor’s weight, just like her eye color, the number of children she has, whether she’s divorced and remarried, Catholic, atheist, born in Timbuktu, unimmunized, or missing a toe, has nothing to do with the advice she’s giving.

We are agreed on this, yes?

Good point, PR. As I reflect on it, I guess I have to disagree, given the imperfection of the analogy. In the case of the Church, they are making claims not merely about some body of intellectual knowledge, but about encounter and personal experience that is supposedly transforming.

 

[PRmerger]

Good point, PR. As I reflect on it, I guess I have to disagree, given the imperfection of the analogy.

Really? The truth of what the doctor says is dependent upon her weight?

I want to be clear that this is what you are proclaiming here on the CAFs.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Right, which data again? In what area do these fat doctors show results among the patients (I clarified that before, but it got passed over) that are higher than crystal healers and placebos? I’m perfectly willing to consider the fat doctor himself as just one of his (own) patients.

Are you looking for evidence to consider the possibility that patients of the fat doctor may not do as well as patients of other doctors with regards to weight problems; evidence to show that may not be because the doctor is a bad doctor or gives bad advice, but because his patients take him less seriously and tend in greater numbers not to follow his advice compared to other doctors because he is fat? Is that your question?

It may in fact be true, if that were the case, that the fat doctor could be an exceptional one who gives superb advice, better than all other doctors, but the patients are the ones not heeding it because of their views regarding “fat doctors.”

You are claiming that fat doctors ought to, then, lose weight to be more credible.

However, it is equally true that the logically challenged patients ought to be more rigorous in their thinking rather than exercise shallow thought, prejudice and poor judgement.

This, I think, is PR’s point. The patients are exercising poor logic so even if patients of the fat doctor were to be found not doing as well as the patients of other doctors with regard to weight issues, that may be attributable to their poor use of reason.

Should the fat doctor lose weight merely to anticipate and overcome the prejudice of his patients? No, he should lose weight to be more healthy.

What he could do is help his patients be more rigorous with regard to their thinking. Perhaps teach them to make better logical connections. Have a logician come to his clinic and offer Logic 101, perhaps?

I suspect the phenomenon of improper application of logic is a wider one that just this doctor’s hypothetical patients. Perhaps our culture ought to be more attuned to good logic and critical thinking skills. Rather than commercials on TV that seek to dupe audiences into buying proffered goods, we should only allow the truth to be spoken and use commercial time to educate audiences in critical thinking rather than indoctrinate them, yes?

You may draw your own conclusions with regard to your view of the Catholic leadership, but it seems to me that you stand in the same relationship vis a vis the Church leadership as the patients of the fat doctor who fail to heed his advice based on their own prejudices and stereotypes.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Are you looking for evidence to consider the possibility that patients of the fat doctor may not do as well as patients of other doctors with regards to weight problems; evidence to show that may not be because the doctor is a bad doctor or gives bad advice, but because his patients take him less seriously and tend in greater numbers not to follow his advice compared to other doctors because he is fat? Is that your question?

It may in fact be true, if that were the case, that the fat doctor could be an exceptional one who gives superb advice, better than all other doctors, but the patients are the ones not heeding it because of their views regarding “fat doctors.”

You are claiming that fat doctors ought to, then, lose weight to be more credible.

However, it is equally true that the logically challenged patients ought to be more rigorous in their thinking rather than exercise shallow thought, prejudice and poor judgement.

This, I think, is PR’s point. The patients are exercising poor logic so even if patients of the fat doctor were to be found not doing as well as the patients of other doctors with regard to weight issues, that may be attributable to their poor use of reason.

Should the fat doctor lose weight merely to anticipate and overcome the prejudice of his patients? No, he should lose weight to be more healthy.

What he could do is help his patients be more rigorous with regard to their thinking. Perhaps teach them to make better logical connections. Have a logician come to his clinic and offer Logic 101, perhaps?

I suspect the phenomenon of improper application of logic is a wider one that just this doctor’s hypothetical patients. Perhaps our culture ought to be more attuned to good logic and critical thinking skills. Rather than commercials on TV that seek to dupe audiences into buying proffered goods, we should only allow the truth to be spoken and use commercial time to educate audiences in critical thinking rather than indoctrinate them, yes?

You may draw your own conclusions with regard to your view of the Catholic leadership, but it seems to me that you stand in the same relationship vis a vis the Church leadership as the patients of the fat doctor who fail to heed his advice based on their own prejudices and stereotypes.

Sure, I totally get that he might be right. I get that there may be flaws in his patients that keep them from reflecting the rightness of his advice. Consider approximately parallel cases, though: the financial advisor who says he has found a great way to increase profits from your investments - but he is broke, his clients are broke, and so on. On what grounds would we believe him? He might well be right. Or, consider a marriage counselor who claims she understands the secret to happy, fulfilling, stable marriages. She is on her fourth marriage, and her patients do no better than average people on the street in maintaining a healthy marriage. Again, she might be right. She is not a supporting case (fine). Yet, why would we trust her advice? If the fin advisor is no wealthier, the marriage counselor is no happier, we would look to their clients. If they are no wealthier/happier either, then where do we look?

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, I totally get that he might be right.

There you go.

It’s irrelevant, except possibly as a legitimate* emotional* response, to consider the doctor’s obesity when evaluating her advice.

Similarly, you can see how the Church might right, irrespective of the sinners who are proclaiming her teachings.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . they are making claims not merely about some body of intellectual knowledge, but about encounter and personal experience that is supposedly transforming.

You would settle for anything less? What possible point is there to life besides having a relationship with God? You will honestly sit back and ask for evidence? The miracle is all around us; it is us as He brings the entirety of creation into existence through His infinite compassion. How does one open one’s eyes to see? It is all clearly stated - prayer, participation in the mass and sacraments, contemplation of Holy Scripture and other teachings, and charitable works - doing His will. Ultimately, it is all about love because He is Love.
I unfortunately, know what this sounds like. -sigh- You have made it very clear.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure, I totally get that he might be right. I get that there may be flaws in his patients that keep them from reflecting the rightness of his advice. Consider approximately parallel cases, though: the financial advisor who says he has found a great way to increase profits from your investments - but he is broke, his clients are broke, and so on. On what grounds would we believe him? He might well be right. Or, consider a marriage counselor who claims she understands the secret to happy, fulfilling, stable marriages. She is on her fourth marriage, and her patients do no better than average people on the street in maintaining a healthy marriage. Again, she might be right. She is not a supporting case (fine). Yet, why would we trust her advice? If the fin advisor is no wealthier, the marriage counselor is no happier, we would look to their clients. If they are no wealthier/happier either, then where do we look?

Walker Percy wrote a book called “Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book.” In it he develops a prolonged narrative but intermittently stops and poses questions regarding possible interpretations of the significant elements within the narrative.

Critics who did not understand what he was getting at didn’t find the book very helpful. His point, indirectly absorbed by reading the book in the proper headspace, was that self-help books are oxymoronic. Why would someone go to another source to help themselves? Such an expectation presumes that one is not able, due to a complete misapprehension of the point of human existence, to “help” themselves and therefore reading a book would be completely useless.

I get a sense that you are looking for external “help,” implicit in the fact that you are looking for someone else to show you the way.

Perhaps the point to be taken is that beginning with such an assumption is precisely the error you are making. Take your life under your own auspices. Assume ultimate responsibility for your own decisions. To offload accountability for your decisions onto “advisors” is wreckless and a dereliction of your responsibility as a human being.

This, I suggest, was precisely Walker Percy’s unstated thesis. “Self-help” in the way it was understood that gave rise to a multitude of self-help books was a basic misconstrual and abrogation of what it means to be human in the first place.

If Walker Percy’s book was read as a kind of mirror for reflection, then it could be properly understood for what it was intended - that is to help those to refind their own ability to “self-help” - not actually to dispense any “helpful advice.”

It seems to me, with all due respect, that this may be precisely your issue and why you grossly overestimate the value of others in “leading” you and continue looking for some perfect example to light your way. Why not BE that perfect light! Decide what it takes to be that light and do it. Just do it.

You are ultimately responsible for you, for how the actions of others will affect you, for how you understand them and yourself, for the amount of token responsibility for your decisions you assign to others, and, most importantly, how you make use of God’s grace in bring yourself and others to Christ. In a very real sense, it is in the “manning up” and not looking to others that you will find what you are looking for. The possibility of being your true “self.”

 

[Neoplatonist]

Walker Percy wrote a book called “Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book.” In it he develops a prolonged narrative but intermittently stops and poses questions regarding possible interpretations of the significant elements within the narrative.

Critics who did not understand what he was getting at didn’t find the book very helpful. His point, indirectly absorbed by reading the book in the proper headspace, was that self-help books are oxymoronic. Why would someone go to another source to help themselves? Such an expectation presumes that one is not able, due to a complete misapprehension of the point of human existence, to “help” themselves and therefore reading a book would be completely useless.

I get a sense that you are looking for external “help,” implicit in the fact that you are looking for someone else to show you the way.

Perhaps the point to be taken is that beginning with such an assumption is precisely the error you are making. Take your life under your own auspices. Assume ultimate responsibility for your own decisions. To offload accountability for your decisions onto “advisors” is wreckless and a dereliction of your responsibility as a human being.

This, I suggest, was precisely Walker Percy’s unstated thesis. “Self-help” in the way it was understood that gave rise to a multitude of self-help books was a basic misconstrual and abrogation of what it means to be human in the first place.

If Walker Percy’s book was read as a kind of mirror for reflection, then it could be properly understood for what it was intended - that is to help those to refind their own ability to “self-help” - not actually to dispense any “helpful advice.”

It seems to me, with all due respect, that this may be precisely your issue and why you grossly overestimate the value of others in “leading” you and continue looking for some perfect example to light your way. Why not BE that perfect light! Decide what it takes to be that light and do it. Just do it.

You are ultimately responsible for you, for how the actions of others will affect you, for how you understand them and yourself, for the amount of token responsibility for your decisions you assign to others, and, most importantly, how you make use of God’s grace in bring yourself and others to Christ. In a very real sense, it is in the “manning up” and not looking to others that you will find what you are looking for. The possibility of being your true “self.”

lol. I AM working to be good and seek truth and so on. I just happen to be really bad at it.

I’m not looking for someone else to be accountable for my decisions or my path. I seek Christ’s presence, but haven’t found it. Why would I not look to those who have as offering insight and perspective on how I could be less incompetent in my efforts?

However, if I don’t feel his presence, and I can’t find others who actually seem to feel his presence, then it naturally enough causes me to struggle with what it would mean to talk about a “personal” relationship/faith or to continue clinging to metaphors and analogies like bride-bridegroom or parent-child that have been handed down to us as ways of understanding our faith.

 

[Neoplatonist]

There you go.

It’s irrelevant, except possibly as a legitimate* emotional* response, to consider the doctor’s obesity when evaluating her advice.

Similarly, you can see how the Church might right, irrespective of the sinners who are proclaiming her teachings.

Might be right/ might be wrong. What tilts one way or another if not evidence of their lives? If you claim you went to med school (a transformative experience), but your care is no better than random variation, why would we believe you?

A better example might be a more fundamentally transformative experience. If you claim you went through Navy SEAL training, but your marksmanship or hand-to-hand skills are no better than we might find within one standard deviation from average, rather than being in the top-most percent, or perhaps even most relevant, if your mindset in the face of hardship seems indiscernible from that of the middling masses, why would we believe you? Special forces training is nothing if not personally transformative, so it seems a useful comparison. Surely we would agree that experience of the presence of Christ would be/ is personally transformative. ?]