Why create the world at all?

[razredge]

The Church Fathers taught it. Fr. Gabrielle Amorth talks about it in his book on Exorcism. I read it in his work, though I had already read it in earlier sources before that. I’d need to look around a bit to find out more about the Church Fathers’ writings on it. St. Louis de Montfort I think is the one who describes how one of the reasons for Satan’s fall was that his pride couldn’t handle the idea that God would raise a human woman, Mary, up higher than him, even though by the order of nature, humans are far below the archangels. I believe St. Louis was taking his view from earlier Fathers, though. And there were other reasons listed for the fall of the demons, as well.

The problem with exorcism is that significant parts of the modern Church don’t seem to believe demonic possession to be any more than a psychological disorder. My parish priest for example is quite skeptical on the topic.

I did attend a talk by one of the exorcists from the Rome who came over recently and while interesting, some of the things he said seemed highly fanciful and superstitious - things like reading Harry Potter or watching horror movies open the door for demonic possession.

I don’t know what you mean by “just” and “simply.” Angels are another species from us. They are a bodiless, exalted species with greater intellect and power than we have. Fallen angels retain these attributes, but they lack divine love. They want evil only, for they have separated themselves from God, in Whom is Love, and in Whom all goodness is found. The angels are messengers of God, but they are also distinct creatures, like we are. We too can sometimes be used by God as His messengers. And many angels have other tasks, besides passing on messages, including war against God’s enemies, praising the Lord, contemplation, etc.

Demons are tempters permitted by God to attack mankind (Remember, in Job, Satan asks permission to attack Job and God permits it, but was not the instigator of it). They are more than that, though. Bl. Teresa of Calcutta said that the demons’ war is not waged against humans directly but against God, for they hate God and seek to extinguish His Life from within human hearts, out of hatred of him, not specifically out of hatred for us.

Demons do other things too, besides tempt. They aren’t “simple,” anymore than we or the angels are “simple.” We are all sophisticated and highly exalted beings, designed to love God and serve and glorify Him in many ways.

I meant that angels only purpose is to serve as messengers of God and demons as tempters of God.

For example in Jewish belief:

Angels exist in the worlds above as a ‘task’ of God. They are an extension of God to produce effects in this world. After an angel has completed its task, it ceases to exist. The angel is in effect the task. This is derived from the book of Genesis when Abraham meets with three angels and Lot meets with two. The task of one of the angels was to inform Abraham of his coming child. The other two were to save Lot and to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.[21]

 

[levinas12]

God created humans because they exist in time and space which constitute, in a way, the a priori condition for the Incarnation and Redemption. Incarnation and Redemption require time and space.

God could not make Himself an angel nor could He be a Redeemer to the angels - because the angels make an instantaneously eternal decision for or against God.

“Instantaneous” is not really a good word here because it implies some type of temporality. But it’s the best I can come up with.

Now why did God decide on Incarnation and Redemption? Because that was the way humans could enter into the Life of the Trinity, or, as said every day at Mass, share in “divinity”. Angels do not share in “divinity”. Because God did not unite Himself with them.

Although Angels remain outside the Life of the Trinity, they still can see the Face of God.

I know this is the philosophy forum, not the theology forum. I apologize for straying, but the thread raises an awfully interesting question.

 

[levinas12]

God could not make Himself an angel nor could He be a Redeemer to the angels - because the angels make an instantaneously eternal decision for or against God.

I need to clarify: it would not make much sense for God to have assumed an angelic nature ,or for God to have been a Redeemer for angels – because angels make instantaneous irrevocable decisions. There would have been no time for the redeeming to take place. And without the redeeming, what purpose would it have served for God to have assumed an angelic nature?

There is a related issue here. Was the Incarnation part of God’s original plan? And, if so, was the original sin in some way necessary? But if this were the case, what about Adam and Eve’s free will? And if the Incarnation did not take place, then how would we enter into the Life of the Trinity? These are questions to ponder. And I hope some of our theologians out there can address them.

I apologize again for straying into theology on a philosophy forum.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The problem with exorcism is that significant parts of the modern Church don’t seem to believe demonic possession to be any more than a psychological disorder.

Is that the problem with exorcism or with significant parts of the modern Church?

My parish priest for example is quite skeptical on the topic.

The Bible is infallible, and the Catechism provides us with the infallible teachings of the Church, and all of them affirm the supernatural power of exorcism and the reality of demonic possession.

I did attend a talk by one of the exorcists from the Rome who came over recently and while interesting, some of the things he said seemed highly fanciful and superstitious - things like reading Harry Potter or watching horror movies open the door for demonic possession.

A good deal depends on the attitude of the person approaching whatever book or movie, and also it depends what book or movie we’re talking about, and it further depends how the person responds to what they view. How they decide to act, following this entertainment. All of these are factors that make a difference. I wouldn’t write off what the exorcist said as fanciful superstition, simply because of cultural bias. He’s been in his business a long time, while you’re no expert. Nor is modern culture any source of expertise on demon possession.

I enjoy the Harry Potter books as good fiction. For me and most people, they seem to have been harmless. But I read on BBC News that many witch covens report a large increase of young members, children and adolescents, since the Harry Potter books were published. The witches praised the Harry Potter books because their publicity brings the witches more recruits. So some people, it seems, read those things and get excited and want to explore the reality behind the fiction, and get hooked in. Witchcraft can easily lead to possession. So I think the devil can use the Harry Potter books to lead people into possession, even if indirectly. And if he can act through them directly to possess some people . . . I don’t know, but if the exorcist says so, I don’t have any expertise on which to stand and say he’s wrong.

As for horror books and movies . . . I enjoy some books or movies in the horror genre, while others I carefully avoid, and a couple times I have turned a movie off halfway through, because of the terrible feeling I got while watching it. I have met other people who have had more vivid demonic type experiences while watching a horror movie.

There’s a whole lot of variety in the horror genre. Some are just good thrillers, while others are something worse and have evil messages or themes. The devil can reach out to people through all sorts of things. The fact that society might call some of these things, “games,” “entertainment,” “movies,” “books,” “art,” or just “good fun,” doesn’t make them harmless. The world is no expert on the devil, on sin or on possession. In fact, Jesus said in the Gospels that the world follows the devil and is his kingdom and playpen. So following the common opinion of the world above the opinion of Catholic exorcists, on the subject of exorcism, isn’t something I’d consider wise.

I meant that angels only purpose is to serve as messengers of God and demons as tempters of God.

For example in Jewish belief:

Ah, I see. No, that belief about angels and demons as expressed in that quote you just provided is not consistent with the Catholic faith.

 

[razredge]

Is that the problem with exorcism or with significant parts of the modern Church?

The Bible is infallible, and the Catechism provides us with the infallible teachings of the Church, and all of them affirm the supernatural power of exorcism and the reality of demonic possession.

The issue with exorcism is who’s to know whether exorcism is not just insanity or another psychological disorder?
I would like to see some secular psychologists or skeptics witness exorcisms and see what they make of it, they are quite commonly performed aren’t they?

And while the Bible may be infallible - this is only in regards to matters pertaining to salvation, it is not infallible with regards to science or history.

With regards to Satan, there is somewhat of a difference on teaching of this - the book of Job has Satan as:

Satan appears in the prose prologue of Job, with Satan’s usual connotation of “the adversary”, as a distinct being. He is shown as one of the celestial beings before the deity,[11] replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come with the words: “from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job 1:7).

The dialogue that ensues characterizes Satan as a member of the divine council who observes human activity, but with the purpose of searching out men’s sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, as it were, a celestial “prosecutor”. He persists in his opinion of Job even after he has passed through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon the Satan demands another test through physical suffering (Job 2:3–5). Satan challenges Job’s righteousness by saying that his belief is built only upon the material goods he has been given, and that his faith will disappear as soon as they are taken from him.

As a tempter of the faithful working with God and not as the father of evil portrayed in later scripture (eg. Revelation).

I personally do not outright reject the existence of supernatural beings (other than God) - for example I believe it’s quite possible that ghosts exist (and find it quite strange how some Christians/Catholics reject the existence of ghosts).

There is a related issue here. Was the Incarnation part of God’s original plan? And, if so, was the original sin in some way necessary? But if this were the case, what about Adam and Eve’s free will? And if the Incarnation did not take place, then how would we enter into the Life of the Trinity? These are questions to ponder. And I hope some of our theologians out there can address them.

Now why did God decide on Incarnation and Redemption? Because that was the way humans could enter into the Life of the Trinity, or, as said every day at Mass, share in “divinity”. Angels do not share in “divinity”. Because God did not unite Himself with them.

So you think humans are greater than angels since we can share in God’s divinity unlike angels?

What is there to stop angels from uniting themselves with God? Are we in heaven not united with Him?

I know this is the philosophy forum, not the theology forum. I apologize for straying, but the thread raises an awfully interesting question.

I’m sure someone would have asked a similar question before. This is quite an old forum with a huge amount of posting going on.

 

[levinas12]

So you think humans are greater than angels since we can share in God’s divinity unlike angels?

In a sense, yes. We have been given a great privilege (mind-blowing might be a more apposite designation). When the Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature, that began a process which allows us to enter “inside” the Trinity (something that angels cannot do).

It is possible for God to assume an angelic nature (the wording of my previous post #42 was off the mark) but it would not make much sense to do so because angels would not have been subject to a Redemption (if Redemption can only take place in time).

It has been suggested that this was why some of the angels rebelled.

All of this is very speculative.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The issue with exorcism is who’s to know whether exorcism is not just insanity or another psychological disorder?
I would like to see some secular psychologists or skeptics witness exorcisms and see what they make of it, they are quite commonly performed aren’t they?

Exorcists work together with psychologists. When people ask for an exorcism, they are examined by a psychologist as well as an exorcist.

Skeptics and secular psychologists have a secular bias. They aren’t more likely to arrive at truth than a Catholic psychologist, who admits the possibility of demonic phenomenon, while also being an expert in psychology, and thus being able to cover the natural possibilities in a rational and fully capable way.

From what I’ve read, though, exorcists work with either Catholic psychologists or secular psychologists.

People who ask for exorcisms have generally already exhausted natural science and medicine for help. They have met with psychologists before without being able to get any help. They have gone to hospitals and have seen professionals. Often they have lost a lot of money looking for a solution through secular venues, before they try exorcists (according to Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, Rome’s chief exorcist).

But when they come to an exorcist, the exorcist examines them together with a psychologist. Exorcism is never assumed. Things like split personality disorder and other psychological ailments are obviously looked for.

In the past, before the advances of modern psychology, there probably were more errors among exorcists, people mistaking psychological disorders for demonic problems. It still may happen at times, but it surely happens less frequently, now, given modern advances in psychology.

Here are some of the signs of possession looked for by exorcists:
Fr. William Saunders:

In determining whether a person is possessed by the devil or his demons, the Church would first make sure he underwent thorough physical and psychiatric examinations. Eliminating these natural causes, Church officials would seek other signs: unexplainable physical phenomena, such as levitation or the uncaused movement of objects; displaying strength that surpasses one’s condition; the knowledge and usage of archaic languages which the person would have no way of previously knowing, such as speaking Aramaic; and the secret knowledge of a person’s life, particularly the exorcist, which no other person would know. Another sign is the vehement aversion to God, the Blessed Mother, the saints, the cross, and sacred images, demonstrated by blasphemous remarks or sacrilegious actions. The devil also reveals his presence by acts of anger and violence, and through blasphemous, sacrilegious, profane, and obscene remarks. The Bishop would authorize an exorcism only after serious examination and a careful weighing of all of the evidence.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0362.html
Some of the phenomenon listed above do not require a supernatural agent, such as the blasphemous remarks, but they nonetheless serve as a sign suggesting a demon may be involved. They are an evidence, though not definitive proof. The vehement opposition of a demoniac to holy objects and sacramentals can become a clear sign of demonic possession, in some cases, though. For instance, Fr. Gabrielle Amorth described a situation where a wife came to him, believing her husband to be demon possessed. Fr. Gabrielle gave her holy water and she sprinkled it on her husband’s clothes, secretly. From that time on, he refused to wear those clothes, though he had no natural way of knowing what had happened. I believe she also sprinkled it on his side of the bed they shared, and he refused to sleep on the bed from then on, as well.

Also, sometimes a priest might “fake” spraying a person with holy water, while it’s really just tap water, and the person won’t react, but then they will react violently, showing every indication of being in great pain, when sprayed with real holy water. Etc. There are lots of ways of checking.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

And while the Bible may be infallible - this is only in regards to matters pertaining to salvation, it is not infallible with regards to science or history.

That is not correct. Vatican II only referred to its infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but it never said it is NOT infallible in matters of science or history. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church affirm that it IS infallible in these matters as well, and so does the Church herself, in such official documents as Providentissimus Deus.

For instance, Pope Leo XIII wrote in par. 20 of Providentissimus Deus:
The Holy Father:

It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.

In other parts of the document, the Holy Father specifically states that history and science in the Bible are altogether true, as well. He says that although the Bible is not written for the sake of science or history, but for our salvation, its references to them are true and all genuine science is harmonious with the faith and scriptures.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

Vatican Council II did not alter or correct any of this definitive teaching of Vatican Council I. It did clarify some matters, though. For instance, it stated that the Bible needs to be read and its infallibility understood in terms of genre and literary technique. The Catechism points this out, for example:

CCC 109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

CCC 110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

I read a book about sacred scripture for priests, issued by the Vatican, and it explains that different parts of the Bible are written with different purposes and through different methods. Infallibility must be understood in terms of the genre that a book is written in. When a Biblical writing is written as poetry, one should not therefore insist on strict literalism for all the words. The Psalmist might say, for example, that the mountains bow down before the Lord, in a poetic lyric. This doesn’t mean that the mountains literally bow. Poetry takes liberties with physical realities, in its genre, as its method of conveying truth in its own specific ways. Various parts of the bride’s body in Song of Songs are also described frequently as “your stomach is a pile of wheat,” or, “your eyes are pools from Lebanon,” etc. These aren’t to be taken literally, for we are reading a different genre of writing. On the other hand, historical texts are to be understood literally, for the authors intended to convey truth of literal history through them. The authors’ intention has to be kept in mind. All the sacred writings are infallible and full of truth, but that truth is poured out in different ways according to genre and the intent of the writers (which is also guided by the Holy Spirit, as His preferred way of revealing truth).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

With regards to Satan, there is somewhat of a difference on teaching of this - the book of Job has Satan as:

Quote:
Satan appears in the prose prologue of Job, with Satan’s usual connotation of “the adversary”, as a distinct being. He is shown as one of the celestial beings before the deity,[11] replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come with the words: “from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job 1:7).

The dialogue that ensues characterizes Satan as a member of the divine council who observes human activity, but with the purpose of searching out men’s sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, as it were, a celestial “prosecutor”. He persists in his opinion of Job even after he has passed through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon the Satan demands another test through physical suffering (Job 2:3–5). Satan challenges Job’s righteousness by saying that his belief is built only upon the material goods he has been given, and that his faith will disappear as soon as they are taken from him.

As a tempter of the faithful working with God and not as the father of evil portrayed in later scripture (eg. Revelation).

This is not a contradiction. God uses Satan to purify the faithful, such as Job. Frequently, God has allowed demons to torment saints as well, in order to purify them.

Satan is both a tempter of the faithful and a father of evil. The fact that the Book of Job doesn’t mention that Satan is the father of evil doesn’t mean that it denies this part of Satan’s character. The Book of Revelation also agrees with the Book of Job that Satan is the accuser of humanity, before God. Rev. 12:10, for example, says, “Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.’” The Book of Revelation agrees with the Book of Job that Satan is our accuser and attacker. So does Jesus in the Gospels, when He tells Peter that Satan has asked God permission to “sift him like wheat,” to try and test him. Satan is the accuser and attacker. Satan has to ask God for permission to do his evil work because God has all the power and authority. One of his ways of getting permission from God to do evil to us is by an appeal to justice, and that is why he accuses us so fiercely of our faults.

Satan’s role as an accuser is part of the spiritual war that is going on. Satan uses appeals to divine justice and accusations against us for our sins to try to gain permission from God to tempt us or in other ways attack us. On the other hand, the angels and saints intercede to divine mercy to seek grace from God so that He will help us reform our lives and become holy, thus entering salvation. Accusation, petition and prayer are all crucial elements of the spiritual war.

I personally do not outright reject the existence of supernatural beings (other than God) - for example I believe it’s quite possible that ghosts exist (and find it quite strange how some Christians/Catholics reject the existence of ghosts).

Fortunately, we don’t have to go by mere fallible human opinion on these matters! The Lord has revealed His Truth infallibly through the Church’s Tradition, which has attested constantly from the beginning to the existence of real supernatural angels, seraphim, cherubim, archangels and other choirs of angels. The infallible Tradition and Scriptures have also revealed the existence of demons as real supernatural entities. The Magesterium confirms these truths in the current Catechism and many Papal documents. So you don’t have to worry about human doubt on these matters.

I think Michelle Arnold’s thread on ghosts in the Apologists Forum gives some very interesting remarks about it:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68370

 

[razredge]

Exorcists work together with psychologists. When people ask for an exorcism, they are examined by a psychologist as well as an exorcist.

Skeptics and secular psychologists have a secular bias. They aren’t more likely to arrive at truth than a Catholic psychologist, who admits the possibility of demonic phenomenon, while also being an expert in psychology, and thus being able to cover the natural possibilities in a rational and fully capable way. .

It’s a good thing they have the patients checked by a psychologist before any exorcism takes place.

Well, skeptics and secular psychologists have secular biases but priests have religious biases as well (and possible susceptibility to paranormal rather than natural explanations) - there’s no reason why a skeptic will refuse to believe if they witness such paranormal events as you’ve described and are allowed to test for any behaviour they believe to be fradulent.

That is not correct. Vatican II only referred to its infallibility in matters of faith and morals, but it never said it is NOT infallible in matters of science or history. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church affirm that it IS infallible in these matters as well, and so does the Church herself, in such official documents as Providentissimus Deus.

Ok, but if it was infallible in matters of science and history, they would have declared as much.

It’s good that they didn’t as the evidence would seem to suggest that it isn’t infallible in matters of science and history

This is not a contradiction. God uses Satan to purify the faithful, such as Job. Frequently, God has allowed demons to torment saints as well, in order to purify them.

Satan is both a tempter of the faithful and a father of evil. The fact that the Book of Job doesn’t mention that Satan is the father of evil doesn’t mean that it denies this part of Satan’s character.

I think Michelle Arnold’s thread on ghosts in the Apologists Forum gives some very interesting remarks about it:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68370

Makes sense - the Gospels do show Jesus interacting with a demons/Satan that seem more malevolent than in Job so no problems there.

That is an interesting answer to the ghosts question - though I would say that if you encountered a ghost it would be as good a proof of God’s existence as you’d ever get.

Also, I was wondering about the lack of free will in heaven - doesn’t that mean our enjoyment of the afterlife is reduced somewhat? I thought it was something like souls in heaven have free will but they only choose good because they are in the presence of God and would never want to choose otherwise.

 

[JDaniel]

&

Well put guys, I was thinking along these lines originally but was wondering if there was any other reason besides ‘God just created the universe this way’.

Knowing how vast the universe is, there is likely alien life out there too, which probably tie into the idea of this ‘created variety’ (though if there were no alien life at all in the entire universe, that would be pretty good proof for the existence of God)

There is an argument against the so-called probability of alien life out there. And it is an extension of St. Thomas’ On the Power of God, On Truth, and the Summa Theologica. It says succinctly that, matter’s goal is the soul of man. It is a dialectical argument that shows that while primary matter cannot produce the soul of man, it possesses the form as its highest achievement. As the argument goes, St, Thomas shows us that everything that is tends towards its highest perfection. And, the highest perfection matter can own is the soul of man. He shows us that all other beings struggle (where have we heard that word before?) more for their own perfection than for existence, or life.

Let’s look at evolution. It is impossible to deduce evolution from any principles we know. It is impossible to deduce the tendency towards the perfections of being we see in creatures from any principles we know, including any from pure science. The tendency, or, rather, appetite for perfection is the only reasonable deduction we can possibly make. The fact of evolution is insufficient to tell us why life evolves. Just like the fact of motion is insufficient to explain motion, unless we are speaking only of complex creatures with moving parts. And even then it’s not all that compelling.

But, if in fact, man’s soul is the ultimate perfection of matter - since we see nothing beyond it - it is more than probable that there is no other life form in the universe beyond man. Now, that’s not to say that there might not be lower life forms on other planets. That is to say that there is good reason to believe that man is the universe’s greatest perfection.

What’s your thoughts on that?

God bless,
jd

 

[razredge]

There is an argument against the so-called probability of alien life out there. And it is an extension of St. Thomas’ On the Power of God, On Truth, and the Summa Theologica. It says succinctly that, matter’s goal is the soul of man. It is a dialectical argument that shows that while primary matter cannot produce the soul of man, it possesses the form as its highest achievement. As the argument goes, St, Thomas shows us that everything that is tends towards its highest perfection. And, the highest perfection matter can own is the soul of man. He shows us that all other beings struggle (where have we heard that word before?) more for their own perfection than for existence, or life.

jd

If aliens don’t exist, it is pretty much evidence that God definitely exists - the chance of life only existing on Earth is astronomically small unless God only created life on earth.

Though I believe they do, there is some evidence of recent supernatural events which could well be explained by alien visitors, time travellers or interdimensional beings.

Let’s look at evolution. It is impossible to deduce evolution from any principles we know. It is impossible to deduce the tendency towards the perfections of being we see in creatures from any principles we know, including any from pure science. The tendency, or, rather, appetite for perfection is the only reasonable deduction we can possibly make. The fact of evolution is insufficient to tell us why life evolves. Just like the fact of motion is insufficient to explain motion, unless we are speaking only of complex creatures with moving parts. And even then it’s not all that compelling.

But, if in fact, man’s soul is the ultimate perfection of matter - since we see nothing beyond it - it is more than probable that there is no other life form in the universe beyond man. Now, that’s not to say that there might not be lower life forms on other planets. That is to say that there is good reason to believe that man is the universe’s greatest perfection.

What’s your thoughts on that?

God bless,

I don’t quite understand what point you’re trying to make, so forgive me if I miss something.

You seem to assume that evolution is a process that leads to perfection - it does not. There is no evidence that humans are ‘perfect’ creatures and the soul is not the ‘ultimate perfection of matter’ since if it was matter it wouldn’t be a soul.

Your conclusion seems to commit an anthropic fallacy as you are looking at the universe from a human point of view, through the lens of human history and science - we have no idea what other forms of life can look like or how complex they may or may not be.

It is rather like a person who has lived their entire life in a building with no windows, TVs etc, internet, books etc. and assumes based on their experience that this is all there is to the world.

 

[tonyrey]

If aliens don’t exist, it is pretty much evidence that God definitely exists - the chance of life only existing on Earth is astronomically small unless God only created life on earth.

The amount and distribution of life in the universe is irrelevant to the existence of God - unless His decisions can be determined statistically…

 

[razredge]

The amount and distribution of life in the universe is irrelevant to the existence of God - unless His decisions can be determined statistically…

No because it would be a ‘miracle’ if life on Earth was the only life to exist in the universe.
It is so statistically improbable that it would be like someone rising from the dead.

It would be strong evidence that a God exists

 

[tonyrey]

No because it would be a ‘miracle’ if life on Earth was the only life to exist in the universe.
It is so statistically improbable that it would be like someone rising from the dead.

It would be strong evidence that a God exists

God’s decisions are not determined by probability - unless you believe He lacks free will! He is at liberty to create life everywhere or nowhere! Life is miraculous regardless of its frequency…

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That is an interesting answer to the ghosts question - though I would say that if you encountered a ghost it would be as good a proof of God’s existence as you’d ever get.

I personally think there’s better! We know from history that the apostles taught that they personally witnessed the Resurrected Christ. Then, the apostles went and were tortured and martyred for their faith in Him.

Now, if you were one of those apostles and claimed to have eaten meals with the Resurrected Lord, and seen Him eat and drink your fish and wine, and had conversations with Him, all after His Resurrection from the dead, you would know without a shadow of a doubt whether you were lying or not. You would know whether you were telling the truth or not. Because your experiences were held in the company of many other people and you had the physical proof that He had eaten food that didn’t reappear after the encounter ended. You still have the bread crumbs on His plate. You’ve talked with Him repeatedly, and so have all your closest friends. That’s what you’re claiming (that’s what the apostles claimed). So you know whether or not you’re telling the truth. This can’t be only your imagination.

Then you go and make these claims to other people about these experiences you say you and your friends have had. The leaders of the people flog you and throw you out of their religious communities in disgrace. The Roman government threatens to torture you and your friends to death if you don’t change your story.

If your story wasn’t true, would you stick to it? Under torture?

I think if you were making it up, you probably would have stopped spreading it after the first flogging, not to mention the second, or the third. You probably would have confessed to your lies while being flayed, like St. Bartholomew was. Heck, even if you were TELLING THE TRUTH, you probably would have broken! But if you knew you were lying, how much more likely would you be to stop telling this story, or to change it?

Yet all the apostles did not change their story. They were tortured to death for what they proclaimed: that Christ rose from the dead and they all saw Him, spoke with Him, ate with Him and saw Him rise into Heaven, promising to take them with Him when He came again.

People don’t die for stories they invent that they know are lies. At least some of the apostles would have broken if their story wasn’t true, while they were being tortured. But the historical record shows that none of them changed their story and all of them were tortured and killed, except John, who was exiled to a wilderness island.

To me, the apostles’ testimony is proof that Christ rose from the dead, because people don’t die for what they know is a lie, and they knew whether their testimony was a lie or not, and then they died for this testimony.

Lots of people have died for other religions, but not for what they know to be untrue. The apostles were in the unique position to know for certain whether their religion was true or not, and then they died for it.

Also, there’s the Old Testament prophecies . Christ fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in the most incredible fashion. Mathematically, it’s completely impossible that anyone could have fulfilled all those prophecies by chance. And many of those prophecies, Jesus could not have chosen to fulfill deliberately, either. For instance, He couldn’t have chosen, if He was trying to make Himself look like a Messiah, to be born of the line of David or in the village of Bethlehem. He couldn’t have chosen to become a Nazarene, which was chosen for Him when He was little, thus fulfilling the prophecy, “He will be called a Nazarene.” He could not have chosen to be betrayed by one of His closest friends for thirty pieces of silver, and then be crucified between two thieves and placed in a rich man’s tomb. Etc. There’s a lot of prophecy He couldn’t have possibly deliberately fulfilled. The Prophet Daniel also prophesied when the Messiah would come, the date, hundreds of years later, and that was when Jesus entered Jerusalem.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It’s a good thing they have the patients checked by a psychologist before any exorcism takes place.

Well, skeptics and secular psychologists have secular biases but priests have religious biases as well

It’s not an either/or choice between skeptics and secular psychologists and priests. There are also Catholic psychologists who accept the possibility of possession while simultaneously being experts in psychology, and thus very open to psychological explanations. To me, this seems like the most unbiased kind of vantage point.

(and possible susceptibility to paranormal rather than natural explanations) - there’s no reason why a skeptic will refuse to believe if they witness such paranormal events as you’ve described and are allowed to test for any behaviour they believe to be fradulent.

Perhaps you haven’t met the kind of skeptics I have . . . people can be so hard hearted that they wouldn’t believe in God if He materialized visibly and slapped them in the face. Skeptics and secular psychologists tend to be closed to the possibility of demonic possession. But people who go to see exorcists have usually been through a lot of secular psychologists/medics, without experiencing any help from them that actually alleviated their problems (while the effort put into getting all this treatment came for most at a huge financial expense).

Ok, but if it was infallible in matters of science and history, they would have declared as much.

They did, in Vatican I and many other Church documents throughout history. Nothing has changed. Vatican II wouldn’t contradict all the past Church teaching on the matter – an extremely radical step – without even saying so directly. It can’t be assumed that this has taken place.

Pope Leo XIII said in Vatican I that everything in the Bible is written for the sake of our salvation. Vatican II said that everything written in the Bible for the sake of our salvation is infallible. There’s no contradiction there. The logical conclusion is that the entirety of the Bible is infallible and written for our salvation. That also is definitely the teaching of Sacred Tradition. All our Doctors of the Church and Fathers have agreed that the Bible is completely infallible, not just partly. The infallibility is revealed in a variety of genres and methods, in the Bible, though, as the Catechism points out. So when poetry expresses truths in literary terms that cannot be literally true, that’s fine, for the genre isn’t intended to be read literally. Similarly, songs and lyrics, and fictional stories (like those Jesus told His audiences) are not intended to be literal historical truth. But what is written as history should be read as history. Each teaching is completely true in its genre. So Psalmist poetry that has various spiritual messages, but was never intended to be taken according to the literal wording, is still infallible in those messages, in what truth was intended to be conveyed. Similarly, fictional stories are infallible in the morals or messages of the stories, which is all the truth that was intended to be conveyed (not history). And historical books are true in the history they intended to convey.

Old Testament history is strongly confirmed by the records of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and other ancient civilizations surrounding it. New Testament material is strongly confirmed by archaeology and ancient historical resources like Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and the Jewish leaders in the Talmud, not to mention the Early Christians who knew of these events better than anyone (having spoken with the apostles themselves and witnessed many of these events, or having spoken with those that had).

It’s good that they didn’t as the evidence would seem to suggest that it isn’t infallible in matters of science and history

Says who?

Makes sense - the Gospels do show Jesus interacting with a demons/Satan that seem more malevolent than in Job so no problems there.

Satan sure seems extremely malevolent to me, in Job. He kills Job’s family, destroys his goods and attacks his flesh with boils and a wasting sickness. He’s brutal to Job, like he has been to many saints, all in an effort to get him to commit grave sin and fall away from his state of grace. Satan is entirely savage in the Book of Job, as he is in the other books of the Bible (and in the writings of other ancient religions).

Also, I was wondering about the lack of free will in heaven - doesn’t that mean our enjoyment of the afterlife is reduced somewhat? I thought it was something like souls in heaven have free will but they only choose good because they are in the presence of God and would never want to choose otherwise.

I think that’s true. At the same time, observing the Face of God in the Beatific Vision so completely consumes you with overwhelming love and joy that it would be impossible to sin again or choose to reject God. You never would want to, and you couldn’t ever want to or choose to. Imagine being stabbed in the heart by a spear. That’s it. Life as you knew it is over. You look God in the Face and are blown away with the most complete joy, love and unity with perfection, with everything that completes and fulfills you, that you never would want or could want to have anything different. So Free Will ends because you are completely united with the will of God, by a perfect, loving choice of your own. Having chosen Him freely on Earth, and having suffered for Him with love, makes this triumph and glory all the sweeter.

 

[JDaniel]

Interesting on how the angels were tested, does this come from anywhere in particular? Talmudic angeology?

Razredge:

Here’s an interesting paragraph from the Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Chap VIII, The Angels, PP. 248, 1962:

"There is in every treatment of Catholic thought, unless it be a rigidly technical treatise, that happy mixture of the certain, the extremely probable, and the moderately probable which constitutes a real philosophy, where conservatism and liberalism are congenially blended. Thus in the pages which follow all the things written down are not matters of faith, nor would it be possible in a short essay of this kind to affix a proper theological note to every proposition, distinguishing what is strictly of faith from the conclusions and happy inspirations of minds fond of the things of God: but much edification and instruction can be derived from the sayings of theologians and preachers which are not de fide, but rather the legitimate speculations of minds habitually attuned to revealed truth.

“Our first authority on the history of the angels, their lives and their natures, is found in Holy Scripture.”

I did speculate that free will is not possible in Heaven earlier (would also solve the problem of Hell being eternal since it’s not possible to change your mind).

Here is article # 10:

“Angels have free will; they are capable of love and hatred.” - ibid. pp 259.

So this coupled with the ‘variety of creation’ view would reduce possible explanations of the question to:

1. Angels have free will and had to choose or reject God prior to being in Heaven. Humans make this same decision on Earth. Angels are essentially superior creations to humans but God has ordained it to be so due to reasons known only to him (possibly to create variety).

The theological thinking concerning that is as follows:

I.)“The angel never goes back on a decision once taken.” - ibid. pp 259

1. Angels don’t have free will (eg they are just manifested messengers of God), similarily demons are not intrinsically evil and are simply sent by God to tempt us (as presented in the book of Job). We’re on Earth to exercise our free will and choose to embrace or reject God (we’re unable to choose in the afterlife)

Not quite. Angels are much more than “manifest messengers of God.”
“Our Scriptures, then, may be said to accept the angelic world as a complete, self-sufficient, unaccountable power, which cannot itself be altered by the course of human events, but which may influence them whenever it pleases. Nor do the Scriptures distinguish clearly at all times between angelic intervention and and divine intervention.” ibid. pp 249

1. Angels & demons don’t exist. We’re on Earth to exercise our free will and choose to embrace or reject God (we’re unable to choose in the afterlife)

I think you can rule this one out.

1 seems to be the best answer and I’m happy with it (though it still remains somewhat of a mystery)

Would we outright reject 2 & 3? Can 2 be held? ie. are Angels just messengers sent by God and demons simply tempters sent by God (as in the book of Job).

What do you think?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The issue with exorcism is who’s to know whether exorcism is not just insanity or another psychological disorder?
I would like to see some secular psychologists or skeptics witness exorcisms and see what they make of it, they are quite commonly performed aren’t they?

Razredge:

An exorcism is not a spectacle. The Church has no idea what might happen were it to open the doors of exorcisms to laypeople. Think it through. Remember, besides you being skeptical of the veracity of a demonic spirit in possession of someone’s form, the Church is highly skeptical also. Exorcists are particular and few. They do not toy with the prospect. If it is strongly convinced that there is a demonic possession, only then is an exorcism permitted.

And while the Bible may be infallible - this is only in regards to matters pertaining to salvation, it is not infallible with regards to science or history.

How do you know that?

So you think humans are greater than angels since we can share in God’s divinity unlike angels?

No, I do not.

What is there to stop angels from uniting themselves with God? Are we in heaven not united with Him?

The theology admits of more than one realm of heaven. It is said that there are three levels: the Vision level; the middle level, and the earthly level. There may be more. Some angels dwell in the lower two levels, and may not have been to the third level. Since Satan was a dweller in the lower two levels, and, for some reason, was intimidated by the thought of being witness to the Vision, and, since he liked how he viewed himself, he chose to embrace the lower levels for the rest of eternity.

He did not so much choose not-God as much as he chose Satan. So, God created a realm for him (and his followers) which is somewhere within those lower levels, but well below the Vision level. Earlier it was pointed out that once an angel chooses, it is a permanent choice. I think that besides the obvious differences between angels and humans, the biggest difference between the two is that humans - at least for a time - can make reparation and alter their choice. I am not sure that this ability makes us superior to them, but it certainly gives us an advantage that angels do not possess.

God bless,
jd

 

[Irish_Kathleen]

I so understand your question. That being said, you are looking at God through your own finite eyes. He is so much greater than us. I have had so many trials, yet I know God is with me. I cannot dwell on what might have been. Things happen! He is always with us, whether we believe it or not. He created the world for us to have a free choice in our lives.He does not want robots,He wants people that will follow Him. “Trust in the Lord for He is good, and His mercy shall indure forever!”