The Imposter

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by R_C
I feel very sorry for this attitude makes it very hard to find God even by reason alone.

I’m heartbroken that you will not read this reply, but life must go on. I’ll console myself by pointing out that “makes it hard” is not, I repeat not, equivalent to “cannot know”. Aquinas gives three reasons why it may be difficult to know of the existence of God by reason alone. (a) The person simply does not have the constitutional fitness, (b) the person does not have the time, and (c) sloth. I think you must fit into the 3rd category, since you seem to have time to stop by on a regular basis to sprinkle us with new-atheism charm dust, but you do not seem to have bothered to try and find out “HOW we know it”, even though with advent of the internet the information has never been more available. Well, I enjoyed writing that, even knowing that you will never read it.

Ah, I thought of another potential problem regarding you truth-seeking or lack of same. To quote the Angelic Doctor:

Another disadvantage is that such as did arrive at the knowledge or discovery of the aforesaid truth would take a long time over it, on account of the profundity of such truth, and the many prerequisites to the study, and also because in youth and early manhood, the soul, tossed to and fro on the waves of passion, is not fit for the study of such high truth: only in settled age does the soul become prudent and scientific, as the Philosopher says.

 

[Bradski]

It is very poor intellectual behavior to engage a discussion on a topic you do not believe on, such as the Church’s authority, God, etc.

That’s a very odd statement indeed. From which it might appear that you do not discuss any matters spiritual with fellow Christians who also do not believe in the Church’s authority.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

On the off chance you’re still around Tyrion:

That is merely a story. As the ancient saying says: “Hic Rodos, hic salta!”. Prove it here and now, do not appeal to stories, which cannot be examined first hand.

Did you notice the word between “forums.” and “.com” in your address bar? If not you may want to look up there again. We’re generally happy to prove our positions, and have done so ad nauseum if you care to check past threads, but - since this is a Catholic forum - we aren’t going to prove everything we say every time we say it. Reinventing the wheel is a good exercise, but you don’t do it every time you drive to work.

If you want to know why Catholics think the Church is the Church, why don’t you start a thread about that, instead of stomping your foot and demanding proof in a thread about something else?

Well, apart from the condescending tone, you contradict the catechism… which states that God can be known by REASON ALONE… too bad that there is not one word about HOW can we know it. Anyhow… good bye. You can reply to this post, but it will remain unseen.

First, you’re wrong. Ways God can be known by reason are mentioned, though it is true that specifics about God require revelation.

Second, and as above, start a thread about this topic if you want to discuss it. Those of us who are interested in doing so will be happy to defend our beliefs, but again, on this Catholic forum we’re not going to treat Catholicism like it’s some strange thing that no one ever heard of before. The fact that you personally don’t believe it doesn’t make it “a story” that has to be justified every time it’s mentioned - especially in a forum dominated by those who are Catholic - it only means that you don’t believe it. So if you want to engage on these subjects, you’ll have to explicitly do so in an appropriate place instead of insisting that we all act like your position is right all the time.

 

[R_C]

For you, that is merely a story. And your opposition to believe in what appears to be merely a story is sound and reasonable. The approach, however, is problematic. One can be skeptical in order to search for the truth, or one can be skeptical to oppose everything, and ultimately believe in nothing. Taken to an extreme, one could deny everything, and there is a whole branch of philosophy going in that direction. Here however we neither address science nor philosophy. We are addressing theology, the systematic and rational study of God, and ecclesiology, the theological study of that society formed around the year 33 AD called the “Church”.

Obviously you want to know where the Church comes from and where is it going. Here is what I meant when I said your approach was intellectually poor: one cannot debate or oppose a position unless one is ready to accept that he may be wrong and the other party right. It is not a matter of “already agreeing”, but of being open to the possibility of agreeing. Otherwise, if you are engaging in monologues against God and the Church, what is the point in engaging in a debate? You may create a blog, or go to a free speech corner, not come to a forum.

You want evidence. It makes sense. Everyone wants evidence. However, one must understand the approach to faith and to the supernatural in an indirect way, since one can neither weigh nor measure that which is by its own nature intangible.

Consider, for instance, falling in love. Certainly there is some degree of evidence provided throughout the beginning of a relationship, and either party longs to both give and receive signs that denote love (the most excellent and sacred sign being, of course, the reciprocal, perpetual gift of self in matrimony). However, how much evidence is enough evidence? How can one know for sure that the other person is not an imposter that all along has been only pretending to be in love? One must take a risk, make a leap of faith…and above all else, be open to the possibility that the love may actually be there. Consider now an approach in which one simply looks for evidence in everything the other one does, as if love was an unilateral approach on the other partner’s side and he had to do nothing, and ultimately refuses to believe that there can be a relationship. Do you rationally think this approach would succeed?

Now consider the delicate field of psychiatry. When a doctor is trying to learn about and understand the psyche of the person in front of him, what “evidence” does he have of a psychological disorder? Only that which is the result of his experience, of the teaching of those who came before him, and on observation of certain standard tests which have been shown empirically to objectively provide consistent, verifiable results every time they are applied. Now, for centuries - long before this field even existed - the Church has addressed people that displayed symptoms of more than just simple psychological disorders. Certainly a majority were simply sick people. The Church most of the time had no power to help them, and science was not yet up to the task. However, in other circumstances, the expert of the field noticed certain observations, certain characteristics, which hinted at a supernatural phenomenon beyond the indivudal. Knowledge of that which cannot be known, for example: unknown, ancient, or dead languages. Common reactions to specific prayers. Physical reactions of the body that would be impossible under normal circumstances (Ex. exceptionally high fevers that would have lead to immediate death, or incredibly low body temperatures impossible in a living human being). Triggering of such events that science still does not fully comprehend and fall under the modern field of “parapsychology” (knowledge of objects brought by strangers and kept hidden, knowledge beforehand of the approach of the expert, remote displacement of objects, lifting of one’s own body). In modern times, someone with these characteristics would be examined by a competent psychiatrist and found to be perfectly normal from his standpoint, and yet the phenomena and the odd behavior (often destructive and self-destructive) would not cease after all treatment. Then comes a priest of the Church with a humble stole, a crucifix, some blessed water, and a book of prayers centuries old in a dead language, along with a few helpers, a family member, a doctor. After some time and some disturbing reactions, the priest finds himself interacting with an intelligence that appears to be in but not of the person under treatment, which will often know and reveal shameful details of the priest’s or the present people’s lives, and ultimately will be forced to depart by the simple act of prayer. The person would find himself free from all disturbance, and all phenomena cease. Is this not evidence of the existence of a supernatural, of intelligent beings of a spiritual nature, and of the authority of the Church over them? It sure is for the person healed, and for the witnesses. And there is a significant corpus of writings on this subject, from the historical writings (which may not be reliable to you since they come from centuries ago, and nevertheless show the same consistent observations and results) to those written in the modern time by those men of Church who collaborate in research with psychologists and psychiatrists to reach a greater understanding of these events and how much in them is the result of the human mind and how much is unexplainable to science. Instead of challenging me, do some reading on the matter.

About knowing God by reason alone, it certainly can be done, and there are plenty of writings on how to do so. But, as one of these supposed “apostles” wrote some 20 centuries ago, “God is love”, and unfortunately there is yet no paper published that explains love away, not any reliable instruction’s manual on how to fall in love…

 

[R_C]

I am sorry if I sounded condescendant, that is certainly a negative thing that is against the wonderful moral code that I am called to follow. This comes from my background (which you don’t know, and I am glad, because God ultimately does not reveal more to the learned, but to the simple, regardless of their education or learning ability) and above all else from the fact that I am one of the many, many people who have experienced that falling in love with God, and one of the many who have seen evidence of the power of prayer and of the authority of the Church. Thus, though you did not mean it, you basically denied what I have seen and heard, or otherwise learned from reliable sources, which can appear insulting to me and many others. That does trigger some negative defensive reactions, in my case it was a sense of condescendance. But it was that, and not an aggresive behavior (such as yours was) because in my littleness and ignorance I still know something which you don’t, and I sincerely feel sorry that the approach you seem to have adopted somehow precludes you from learning or accepting those things.

 

[tonyrey]

The countless atrocities committed by fanatics throughout history demonstrates that there is no guarantee that an imposter wouldn’t deceive many people but if a person’s words and actions don’t correspond to the example and teaching of Jesus that is enough to detect a liar! “By their fruits you shall know them…”

If a person’s behaviour corresponded to the example and teaching of Christ he wouldn’t be an imposter!

 

[Bradski]

If a person’s behaviour corresponded to the example and teaching of Christ he wouldn’t be an imposter!

That’s quite a low level of proof. I’m sure you’d somethinga little more specific.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Can anyone prove that it was not a “real” revelation? That I merely had a bad dream? Of course not.

are you suggesting that you can’t prove to yourself that it was not a “real” revelation or that you didn’t just make it up?

 

[mrajax]

Just a simple thought experiment:

There’s an alien civilisation that is so far ahead of us technologically that they appear god-like (imagine what people in biblical times would think about what we can do today, just over two thousand years later, then extrapolate that to a few million years).

If a member of this civilisation decided to visit us and, for whatever reason, decided to appear to us as God, then how would we know that he wasn’t?

Here’s a few plot holes in your story: why would this alien appear to us pretending to be God. Is he a trickster deceiving us for no reason? Is he an evil overlord trying to control us? The first case, we’d know he isn’t God through the actions that he does and if his actions contradict those of Jesus or dogma, he’s clearly not God. Is he an evil overlord? Why would God suddenly come and declare war on the world? His kingdom is in heaven so He has no reason to make us slaves.

 

[mrajax]

There would be no way. Such a being could perform a “temporary death” (more like a temporary inconvenience), like Jesus was supposed to have done. He could read the “holy” scriptures from afar, and make sure that what he says - conforms with the text. He could travel across space without a spaceship.

The “church” would be unable to make reasoned decision, either. After all the “church” is just a human institution, composed of fallible human beings - and the “claimed” infallibility is just another unsupported claim. The good, old “duck principle” would prevail. If it looks like a “god”, acts like a “god”, talks like a “god”, it is very probably a “god”.

As a matter of fact… I had a “revelation”. God appeared to me and we had a friendly conversation. He said that he does not exist, has never existed, and does not plan to exist in the future. When I asked him how can a nonexistent being conduct a conversation, he smiled (with his imaginary lips) and said that obviously I use my “puny, useless” human logic… after all, he, as an omnipotent being is not constrained by our limited, human logic. So I was told, directly from the “horse’s mouth” that God does not exist… so I could not believe in God any more.

Can anyone prove that it was not a “real” revelation? That I merely had a bad dream? Of course not.

Here’s my proof how your revelation is not real. It is obvious to anyone but the most brain dead of morons that it is nothing but a misguidid attempt at offending Christians and to look smart and sophisticated when in fact, you’re just being a jerk. Oh you actually had that revelation? Here’s the reality of your revelation: you dreamt it up whilst nodding at your computer thinking of something to offend us. So congratulations, you accomplished absolutely nothing. You can insist that it’s real and that I have no proof that it isn’t but if I continued replying to your subsequent posts, I’d be wasting my time and no atheist is dumb enough to try forcing us to prove something which they know isn’t real in the least.

Why would an alien come and conform to scripture perfectly? Don’t these advanced aliens have a free will? They certainly had enough free will to come and deceive us.

 

[tonyrey]

If a person’s behaviour corresponded to the example and teaching of Christ he wouldn’t be an imposter!

It is absurd to describe the example and teaching of Christ as “quite a low level of proof” considering all the details of His precepts, parables, actions, trial and execution. What more do you expect?

 

[Blinky]

Just a simple thought experiment:

There’s an alien civilisation that is so far ahead of us technologically that they appear god-like (imagine what people in biblical times would think about what we can do today, just over two thousand years later, then extrapolate that to a few million years).

If a member of this civilisation decided to visit us and, for whatever reason, decided to appear to us as God, then how would we know that he wasn’t?

12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast.
13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
15 So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

2 Cor. 11