With the best of intentions, we might unknowingly condemn ourselves to eternal damnation, accepting heresies as truths, rejecting truths as heresies. The dangers of a deceiving God extended far beyond the pages of scripture. The 14th century Oxford-trained theologian John Wyclif feared that if God could lie to us, he could give us false visions, reduce reality to mere appearance and undermine all our knowledge of the world.
These are important questions, but they also proved difficult to answer because the evidence seemed to contradict itself.
Pictures of moors flag
On the one hand, people could look to the narrative of scripture for clues. Scripture reveals a God who acts and reacts to events in the world, who destroys cities, makes covenants, and speaks to Moses in the guise of a burning bush. On the other hand, people could think about God in more philosophically inflected terms, using ideas borrowed from Plato and Aristotle and other Greek thinkers, although these borrowings always had to be adapted to the demands of scripture. Omnipotent and perfect, this philosophically conceived God existed at a distance, aloof from his creation, unchanging and immutable.
A perfect being, after all, lacks for nothing and, lacking nothing, never needs to do anything. To be honest, no one — except the German reformer Martin Luther in his most religiously angst-ridden moments — ever asserted that God could lie. The debate centred around the question of whether God could deceive. The distinction between lies and deceptions was never entirely clear-cut.
Perhaps every lie was a sin, but there was also widespread belief that there was nothing wrong with dissimulating, misleading and concealing the truth when necessary. Murkiness confronted anyone who looked carefully into these terms. What is the difference between concealing and lying? A popular definition, already found in Thomas Aquinas and endlessly repeated throughout the Renaissance, distinguished between virtuous dissimulation and sinful simulation.
We dissimulate when we conceal something about ourselves, we simulate when we pretend to be something we are not. Concise, yes, but was this distinction any distinction at all? But what about God? Everything God does, God does well, and whatever God does well he does justly. If God really is all-powerful, if God possesses all possible perfections, then it is impossible for God to be a deceiver. A truly omnipotent being not only would never do such things, it would not even be capable of doing such things.
God cannot lie or deceive, because God is God.
Free Romantic Suspense Books for Kindle - Freebooksy - Free Kindle Books
Robert Holkot, a 14th century Dominican theologian, popular in his day, now unjustly neglected, suggested there were any number of places in the Bible where God deceived demons, sinners and even the faithful. He deceived Abraham, father of the Jewish people, when he ordered him to sacrifice his son Isaac, only to revoke that order at the last moment, as Abraham held the knife over his rope-bound and trembling son. For Calvin, this bit of scripture was particularly powerful. Ever since Augustine, theologians had sought to absolve God from whatever evil might be laid at his feet by invoking a distinction between what God wills and what God permits.
God does not will evil things to happen, he merely allows them to happen. No good here, Calvin would retort, because scripture states that God does much more than merely allow the Devil to lie to Ahab.
God might well never lie, Calvin concludes with palpable frustration, but how this is so is forever beyond our comprehension. Historians often miss this sort of theological backpedalling because it almost always takes place off the philosophical stage, so to speak, not in theological treatises but in commentaries on the Bible, in sermons and in letters, especially when those commentaries, sermons and letters concern the life of Christ.
Manual Market Time Conspiracy: A Tale of Deceipt, Redemption, and Love
Why, after all, did God need to send his only son to redeem mankind? And why did Christ conceal his divinity, appearing on Earth not as God, but as the man Jesus? Making a bad deal seem good, he promised them that contrary to what God had told them, they would not die if they ate the fruit, that they would be like God himself. To undo this tangle of despair, Gregory argues, God decided it would be best to deal with the Devil much as the Devil had dealt with Adam and Eve.
The Devil had disguised himself as a serpent, so God disguises himself as a sinless man, the only sinless man in the world, a man whose virtuous purity is worth more than every other sinful person combined. And so, much like the Devil, God makes a bad deal sound good as he tempts the Devil to overreach, to crucify the innocent Jesus and, in so doing, to lose his grip on all of humanity. Of course, the Devil would act in so foolhardy a fashion only if he failed to recognise that Jesus is Christ.
It was an odd state of affairs, one that was never fully resolved. S ubsequent theologians would add layers of nuance to this devious divine plot. He offers up a variety of reasons — boys need father figures and turn-of-the-millennium Jews would not have looked too favourably on an unwed mother.
The 13th century Franciscan theologian Bonaventure argued that the Devil was like an evil and cunning sophist, Christ a virtuous and prudent orator. The difference had everything to do with fit and intention. The morally upright orator fits himself perfectly to the circumstances at hand, adapting his words and deeds, his gestures and expressions, to the demands of the moment.
He takes into account his nature and that of the audience, his goals and the obstacles before him. The sophist, by contrast, uses corrupt and ill-fitting means to achieve equally corrupt and ill-fitting ends. Successful or not, transforming God into the perfect rhetorician, the perfect orator, heightened the tensions between the two ways of conceiving God.
Rhetoric, after all, is the art of adapting oneself to the moment; it requires adjustments and reactions, a constant recalibrating of our interactions with others. It was precisely this need to adapt, to change, to act and react, to speak and deceive, that seemed so foreign to the philosophical conception of God as eternal, perfect and unchanging. As it turned out, miraculous interference proved hard to distinguish from deception.
At the turn of the 14th century, another source of tension between scripture and philosophy made the threat of divine deception more pronounced. But Aristotelian philosophy often cut across scripture, not with it. Theologians could hardly sit by idly as students and teachers absorbed this deflated image of God.
If scripture taught anything about God, it taught that God transcended a universe that he had created ex nihilo , out of nothing. God is omnipotent, they asserted, he can do anything. Early in the 14th century, William of Ockham, known to posterity for his razor, asked his readers to carry out a simple thought experiment.
Imagine you are looking at a star. Now, imagine that God, who can do anything, destroys the star while maintaining your vision of it. What you now see is a non-existent star. From theological thought experiments to the daily life of the Church, the possibility of divine deception seemed to crop up everywhere. Robert Holkot asked his readers to think about the celebration of the Eucharist. At the moment of consecration, God miraculously transforms a piece of bread that never ceases to look like anything but a piece of bread into the very body of Christ.
God became the source of universal order at the cost of no longer having anything much to do with the universe. While I I liked a lot this novel! While I already watched the two film adaptations done so far However, I found interesting to read this book since I noticed that the story involved NASA.
In fact, one of my fondest memories is when finally I was able to visit the Kennedy Space Center. And even bought a jacket of those green-like with NASA and Space Shuttle patches the astronauts wear when they aren't using, well Here, you will find a very good story about the possibility of finding alien life. But maybe not in the way that you were expecting.
But a more realistic scientific approach.
You have chosen not to accept cookies
I liked a lot the way of how Dan Brown proposed his idea of the finding of alien life, since it can be easily the way as it will happen in real life. I think that a proof of how good is this book at least to me is that it's a real dark story, full of dangers and deceptions it's on the title! Since after all, one thing is any organization and its inspiring goals, and other the people which manage it, that after all, they are just human beings.
This book is written in way that if you are fan of Michael Crichton books, you will like this one too. It has a narrative style so engaging that I enjoyed a lot the reading experience. Highly recommended. In this work, Dan Brown made the book more interesting because he kept a light on a different direction. Our world is already ruled in the shadow of political games.
The realities know they can only read between the lines. Sep 26, Ahmad Sharabiani rated it really liked it Shelves: novel , 21th-century , fiction.