P
phantasm
Guest
I like the way you think!
- Status
P
phantasm
Guest
Are you talking about Mohammed?
V
Veritas248
Guest
For the billionth time, I’m talking about the Truth of Objective reality.
P
phantasm
Guest
sigh
Ok, sorry, so were back on the objective truth of Hinduism.
Excuse me for not keeping up with the thread.
D
Detales
Guest
Veritas, yes, Consciousness, but definitly not as you might personally understand it. Remember, in the time of Jesus, the parable mode had at least three levels of meaning. It is why I have Mark 4:33,34 in my signature. Again, as RA Heinlein correctly stated, “In English only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” There are volumes and libraries on this that we in “Catholicworld” have no clue about. In the end, for me, after forty five years devoted to the study and experience of that idea, it wins by Occam’s razor. I am not advocating it for everyone, in fact I think that ordinary faith is the best course for most. But I found myself in the position of the monk on the riverbank, viewing the very happy family. They were happy, but they didn’t know. I had to know. I was not decieved.
V
Veritas248
Guest
Not quite. There may be records about Krishna, but there are no accounts of him rising from the dead. And considering that the Mahabharata is an epic, not a history book, your argument falls apart.The same applies to Krishna’s life.
V
Veritas248
Guest
This won’t do for me. I don’t want to be happy without Truth.
V
Veritas248
Guest
I’m done with you until you learn what the word Objective means. It means for all. If something is objectively true, then everything else is false.
M
mhpierce
Guest
Robert in SD;4981289]:Ah, but you are one of the few who have the “secret” knowledge of the “real” Catholic Church.
As a regular viewer of EWTN I have yet to see anyone worship a Pope. I think that EWTN is very Catholic and VERY orthodox in its teaching and its practices. I think your position regarding Vatican II is nothing but sour grapes pouting over the loss of the latin mass - a loss that Benedict XVI has been moving to restore out of an attempt at reconciliation. Referring to the last 5 popes as “heretics” is nothing short of petty spite IMO.
Thus spake “pope” pierce? How in the world can you come to such a ridiculous conclusion as to say that EWTN services are anything but Catholic.
Hmm? Last I heard, EWTN was $750K in the red. And are they not a 501(c)(3) organization - which means they cannot make a profit for their shareholders?
No. They are orthodox when it comes to teaching on the Vatican II documents. It is you who appear to be radically tradititionalist in your rejection of these Church documents.
Oh, and I’m guessing you are placing yourself among the “elect” with the “secret” knowledge of “real” Catholicism. I think it is you who is wrong on this point.
Yes. Your position is very sad.
Peace,
-Robert
I have meditated since yesterday on the Responses posted in the above and I will now respond.
I am saying this in all charity, the Catholic Church today, as you “practice” it, is not the dogmatic, doctrinal, traditional Church in which millions practiced as one unity, fortified by one set of articles, which all were compelled to believe under pain of excommunication.
After Vatican II and on shows such as EWTN, which is going bankrupt as it should, you receive an admixture of Vatican II heresy and "Traditionalism."
This is the truth and you must except it, as even the Mass you attend, which was changed by an anti-pope, Paul VI, is no Holy Sacrifice, but a Protestant service, in which Transubstantiation does not take place. It is a “Man-Centered Meal!” In this “meal” you are worshiping bread which is idolatry, and the words used until 1969 to change bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ were changed. That cannot be but it was done and thus you receive only a “cookie.” The Council of Trent forbade this type of thing from happening and said if it did it was already condenmed!
Do some comparision of the words used to consecrate and you will see the difference.
I could list a slew of other modern heresies promulgated by The Vatican II crowd and the present anti-pope especially, but that would take a book.
I remain deeply concerned for you and others who have been brainwashed since Vatican Two, enslaved as it were by modernists who are in control right up to the top of the Church, which is housed in Rome.
There are only a few real bishops left and a remnant of Catholics who attend the True Holy Sacrifice of the Mass–and we are truly Apostolic.
The rest of you are "outside the real Church,’ and you do not even know it.
Study the Faith of your Fathers and I shall pray for you… And by the way, anti-Pope John-Paul II was treated like a movie star, a celebrirty, and lauded all over the world in a way that many of us find disgusting. Look at the videos of his travels and it becomes obvious. A Catholic never"worships" a Pope, never. His books, examined by Real Catholics are filled with errors and hereseys too. He was no Traditional Catholic Pope, I do not care what you and othere EWTNERS say… He pushed post-Vaican II modernism, period. The Once, Real Catholic Church, housed in The Vatican since 1969, when the New Mass was ordered, was and is still in a Great Apostasy now, which was predicted by many Saints and in Matthew 24–The Abomination of Desolation…
MHPIERCE–nomorefornow
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Well, yeah. What do you expect?
Krishna came over three thousand years before Christ. 
V
Veritas248
Guest
I didn’t see this. No, I’m not. Now if you were to ask what the evidence is, I’d be happy to show you.
V
Veritas248
Guest
And your point? His life is recorded in an epic. Contrast that to the gospels, which all honest historians who don’t have it out for Christianity take as historically reliable.Well, yeah. What do you expect?
P
phantasm
Guest
Wonderful, I agree upon the objective truth of Hinduism. Clearly, every other faith is false.
How could they not be false, Hinduism is objectively true.
I agree with your line of reasoning, it makes such perfect sense.
P
phantasm
Guest
false. Epic fail.
V
Veritas248
Guest
Prove that it is objectively true and you have a case. Prove that the teachings of Hinduism are actually reflected in reality. You have to have proof or hard evidence to state something actually is. Scientific, Philosophical, Historical, take your pick.Wonderful, I agree upon the objective truth of Hinduism. Clearly, every other faith is false.
How could they not be false, Hinduism is objectively true.
I agree with your line of reasoning, it makes such perfect sense.
V
Veritas248
Guest
Nope. You fail.
D
Detales
Guest
Actually, there are resurrections in many traditions. Of course they will be deemed myths by christianists. Well, yes, that is the point. A myth points to an experience one might have for themselves.
The most recent actual resurrection account that I have read is in a near contemporary account in *Autobiography of a Yogi *by Parmahansa Yogananda.
Veritas, I completely respect your study of “facts,” yet facts are contents. I am speaking of experience in a modality of knowing studiously ignored by the Church, christianists in general, and people who have not experienced that for themselves. In thes regard, perhaps you have disregarded certain statements I made I previous post, or you are reading them selectively?
In any case, it matters not. It seems you are satisfied with your position. No one of us changes unless that is experientially challenged. Conversation on here is just that, and is, it seems to me, too often used for self verification.
About your quote, from the first time I read it, I understood it to mean that facing the Truth implies the internal process of re-ordering the world on the basis of new data. That was my experience. My world died and was re-born in an instant of perception. It took years to sort it out. Not the fundametal fact of it, but how to speak it. People who that happens to are either instantly re-wired, and/or go through some perieod of re-adjuistment. You see, thay are dealing with an experiential actuality, not book learning or transmitted tradition. Therefore, science (organized thinking from a known, experiential premise) or suffering (discovery of the premise by inadequacy over time of the false premises) In any case, death is the great leveler, and reports from the edge of that, despite semantic distortion, tend to support something more fundamental that Catholicism. In the mean time Catholicism is perfectly adequate for the unquestioning, or those who have concluded on insufficient data. The Church, nevertheless, has all this knowledge, but in such cryptic form, I’d personally go somewhere else, where it is simpler and up front.
P.S. Phantasm; calm down. Shouting entrenches your opponent. Poor tactic.
The most recent actual resurrection account that I have read is in a near contemporary account in *Autobiography of a Yogi *by Parmahansa Yogananda.
Veritas, I completely respect your study of “facts,” yet facts are contents. I am speaking of experience in a modality of knowing studiously ignored by the Church, christianists in general, and people who have not experienced that for themselves. In thes regard, perhaps you have disregarded certain statements I made I previous post, or you are reading them selectively?
In any case, it matters not. It seems you are satisfied with your position. No one of us changes unless that is experientially challenged. Conversation on here is just that, and is, it seems to me, too often used for self verification.
About your quote, from the first time I read it, I understood it to mean that facing the Truth implies the internal process of re-ordering the world on the basis of new data. That was my experience. My world died and was re-born in an instant of perception. It took years to sort it out. Not the fundametal fact of it, but how to speak it. People who that happens to are either instantly re-wired, and/or go through some perieod of re-adjuistment. You see, thay are dealing with an experiential actuality, not book learning or transmitted tradition. Therefore, science (organized thinking from a known, experiential premise) or suffering (discovery of the premise by inadequacy over time of the false premises) In any case, death is the great leveler, and reports from the edge of that, despite semantic distortion, tend to support something more fundamental that Catholicism. In the mean time Catholicism is perfectly adequate for the unquestioning, or those who have concluded on insufficient data. The Church, nevertheless, has all this knowledge, but in such cryptic form, I’d personally go somewhere else, where it is simpler and up front.
P.S. Phantasm; calm down. Shouting entrenches your opponent. Poor tactic.
V
Veritas248
Guest
In regards to your last paragraph, I’m going to have to ask you to try to put it in simpler terms. I think I understand, but I don’t want to risk misinterpretation.
Now about the resurrections, the context and meaning has to be examined. What is the purpose of the resurrection? Christianity is unique in that the purpose is to save mankind from sin. It is also the only one to be recorded in historical accounts.
All other resurrection stories have something to do with fertility cycles, are written in stories and epics, or come after Christianity.
W
WarriorAngel
Guest
Athiesm is illogical.
In fact the most illogical.
Even Native Americans who had no one to teach them anything showed proof of the scriptures being true.
God said in ancient times that He would put His laws into the hearts of those who do not know Him.
SO here we have Native Americans who praised and worshipped a God they didnt understand. And they venrated Him and they would find ways to please Him. A Creator.
That’s the scriptures prooving itself alive.
And then we have something of interest. Jesus Himself.
Now if He wasn’t Whom He said He was - what profit did He obtain by ‘forgiving’ sinners?
What was in it for Him?
The death He agonized through - what part of that did He willingly accept - as we know He knew it would happen - if it would give Him no merit.
He healed a soldiers ear…
Seriously, what merit would He have obtained by teaching others to love and then taking on death - if it wasn’t to save our sad souls?
Who here can explain why anyone who is fake would be giving forgiveness if it didn’t really matter to them or power?
AND lastly - why must we ‘see’ God to believe?
I do not have to see the wind to believe it effects everything around it.
I can ‘see’ what the wind does, I can feel the wind - but I do not see the wind.
THE SAME is true of God.
In fact the most illogical.
Even Native Americans who had no one to teach them anything showed proof of the scriptures being true.
God said in ancient times that He would put His laws into the hearts of those who do not know Him.
SO here we have Native Americans who praised and worshipped a God they didnt understand. And they venrated Him and they would find ways to please Him. A Creator.
That’s the scriptures prooving itself alive.
And then we have something of interest. Jesus Himself.
Now if He wasn’t Whom He said He was - what profit did He obtain by ‘forgiving’ sinners?
What was in it for Him?
The death He agonized through - what part of that did He willingly accept - as we know He knew it would happen - if it would give Him no merit.
He healed a soldiers ear…
Seriously, what merit would He have obtained by teaching others to love and then taking on death - if it wasn’t to save our sad souls?
Who here can explain why anyone who is fake would be giving forgiveness if it didn’t really matter to them or power?
AND lastly - why must we ‘see’ God to believe?
I do not have to see the wind to believe it effects everything around it.
I can ‘see’ what the wind does, I can feel the wind - but I do not see the wind.
THE SAME is true of God.
W
WarriorAngel
Guest
You don’t believe in the wind right?What’s so wrong with our five senses? They are there for a reason; to protect us from the dangers in our world. Instincts are essential for our survival.
If this analysis works for you and helps you sleep at night, then, yes, it is reasonable. :yup:
For me, it wouldn’t. These two beliefs are far too black and white for me. Beliefs and concepts are way more complex than that.
You can only see how it affects everything - but the wind itself is invisible.
IS the wind really there? Or is it a figment of imagination?
- Status