Church and State

[wynnejj]

If
God is Existence
God is Happiness
And
God is One
Then
Existence is Happiness

So

People can naturally seek Existence
And
Choose nonexistence

Just as,

People can naturally seek Happiness
And
Choose unhappiness

If God is Imagination
And God is Happiness
And God is One
Then Imagination is Happiness

If Imagination is Figment of Fancy
And Religions seek Happiness
Then each Religion is a Pigment of Imagination
And All Religions are Rainbow
And Religion is Opiate of the People

One can spout postulates that are not accepted by
A diversity of people
Over time and place
That Firmly do not accept
A Single Concept that could Unite Us All

Hence, Secular Humanism discounts
God as Imagination,
Religion as Opiate of the People,
Religion’s Bias as Religious Racism
And,
Seeks Universal Religion
Seeks a Color-less World
Without the Diversity of the Rainbow

If God is NOT Imagination
If God is Real
Then Secular Humanism must be Denied
Else God must be Denied
And Real must be Denied
And People Ruled by Universal Religion
And People Ruled by Color-less World
Without the Diversity of the Rainbow

 

[Psychotheosophy]

…A diversity of people
Over time and place
That Firmly do not accept
A Single Concept that could Unite Us All…

All people seek
Happiness in principle

Give me any example
Of someone
Not seeking
Happiness in principle

 

[wynnejj]

Those who despair and seek “nothingness” over life’s troubles and commit suicide. In our society, much of the same symptoms exist, but there are those who simply seek to exist with a certain comfort level, not “happiness” per se but rather “relief” through the pleasures of life.

Ask people to define “Happiness” and you may find quite a variety of answers. (I once heard that “Happiness is a warm gun - bang, bang, shoot, shoot” - Beatles).

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Those who despair and seek “nothingness” over life’s troubles and commit suicide. In our society, much of the same symptoms exist, but there are those who simply seek to exist with a certain comfort level, not “happiness” per se but rather “relief” through the pleasures of life.

Ask people to define “Happiness” and you may find quite a variety of answers. (I once heard that “Happiness is a warm gun - bang, bang, shoot, shoot” - Beatles).

So
All people seek
Happiness in principle

Whether
In terms
Of comfort, relief, nonexistence, etc…

So
Which is the correct term?

 

[wynnejj]

Do you think “nothingness” is “happiness” to those who seek it? To me, it says “happiness” is not achievable?

In the spirit of not throwing up little roadblocks, it seems to me that the concepts that people can generally agree upon over the ages is the idea of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. I believe that these basic drives are in that hierarchy as well. People want Life first, and may hang on to Life even if Liberty is missing. People want Liberty second, and may hang on to Liberty even if the Pursuit of Happiness is not assured. But, some might be willing to give up their Life if either Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness are denied, depending on their flexibility in compromise.

OK, where will you be taking me next? I’m curious as to the point you are trying to make in terms of “Church and State” and common ground for secular society coming to common goals.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Do you think “nothingness” is “happiness” to those who seek it? To me, it says “happiness” is not achievable?

In the spirit of not throwing up little roadblocks, it seems to me that the concepts that people can generally agree upon over the ages is the idea of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. I believe that these basic drives are in that hierarchy as well. People want Life first, and may hang on to Life even if Liberty is missing. People want Liberty second, and may hang on to Liberty even if the Pursuit of Happiness is not assured. But, some might be willing to give up their Life if either Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness are denied, depending on their flexibility in compromise.

OK, where will you be taking me next? I’m curious as to the point you are trying to make in terms of “Church and State” and common ground for secular society coming to common goals.

I agree that….

People either
Accept both Life and Happiness
Or
Reject both Life and Happiness

Because

Life is Happiness
And
Naturally sought by all people
But
Can be freely chosen not to be sought

So…

In terms of “Church and State”…
In our “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”…
We should have a legal right
To Life, Liberty and Happiness

Therefore

If
Each person
Has a legal right to suicide
And
Has a legal right not to suicide
Then
These “legal rights”
Are empty (S + (-S) = 0)

However,

Each person
Must have a legal right
Not to suicide (to Life)

And so

This must not be an empty legal right

 

[wynnejj]

If
Each person
Has a legal right to suicide
And
Has a legal right not to suicide
Then
These “legal rights”
Are empty (S + (-S) = 0)

However,

Each person
Must have a legal right
Not to suicide (to Life)

And so

This must not be an empty legal right

Therefore
If Life is Not Suicide ( L = -S )
If Not Life is Suicide ( -L = S )
And the legal right to be corrected is (S + (-S) = 0)
Which can equivalently be expressed ( (-L) + L = 0)
And an empty legal right is unacceptable
The We, the People, must apply a Human Life Amendment factor of Zero to Suicide / Not Life such that ( 0*(-L) + L = L)

Therefore, the Human Life Amendment factor (0), must be imposed on secular society in order to reverse an empty legal right. OK, I’m convinced. Now go take the formula to secular society.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Therefore
If Life is Not Suicide ( L = -S )
If Not Life is Suicide ( -L = S )
And the legal right to be corrected is (S + (-S) = 0)
Which can equivalently be expressed ( (-L) + L = 0)
And an empty legal right is unacceptable
The We, the People, must apply a Human Life Amendment factor of Zero to Suicide / Not Life such that ( 0*(-L) + L = L)

Therefore, the Human Life Amendment factor (0), must be imposed on secular society in order to reverse an empty legal right. OK, I’m convinced. Now go take the formula to secular society.

Wait a minute, brother.
With the brain God gave you,
We both will.

 

[wynnejj]

No way would I go to secular society with the gibberish we’ve been scribbling in some kind of pseudo-language that is totally vague and imprecise. They’d put me in a straight jacket. Wait a minute, I hear someone at the door… They’re taking me away already…

I looked at some of your previous threads, and in particular the one that states a desire to put together a Catholic Psychology model marrying Thomist philosophy with psychology theory. Is this thread an exercise in some kind of modelling language? It looks like a quasi-program source code. I may have had one psychology course in college, but that is it. So, I’m not really versed in any formal psychology meta - language. I’ve just been playing along to see where we were going with this.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

No way would I go to secular society with the gibberish we’ve been scribbling in some kind of pseudo-language that is totally vague and imprecise. They’d put me in a straight jacket. Wait a minute, I hear someone at the door… They’re taking me away already…

I looked at some of your previous threads, and in particular the one that states a desire to put together a Catholic Psychology model marrying Thomist philosophy with psychology theory. Is this thread an exercise in some kind of modelling language? It looks like a quasi-program source code. I may have had one psychology course in college, but that is it. So, I’m not really versed in any formal psychology meta - language. I’ve just been playing along to see where we were going with this.

…I got lost long ago and completely so once formulas came into the picture - and but did ponder that perhaps Psychotheosophy could change the UserName to Psychotheosophymaticianoet …in good humour and not at all meaning to be nasty, Psychotheosophy …your User Name had me fascinated from the start of this thread.

Theology, philosophy and psychology are all engaged in the search for truth and if one of those sciences contradicts any of the others in any way, then it is obvious there is something wrong in one of the sciences somewhere.

Happy Christmas to you and yours…and all…Barb

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Let’s celebrate Christmas for now,
No jacket required

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[wynnejj]

Being a child of the '50s & '60s, the first Lassie TV show featured Jeff Miller played by Tom Rettig. He was a child star that had to find himself as he got older. He gravitated to programming and became well known and influential in the dBase / FoxPro community.

He wrote a little program in syntactically correct dBase language. Here’s an example, which I was reminded of in the course of this thread.

A “Program for Life” authored by the late Tom Rettig

USE Yourself exclusive

SET TALK OFF
CLEAR

DO WHILE ALIVE

STORE “LOVE” TO heart
STORE “health” TO body
STORE “peace” TO mind
STORE “compassion” TO others
STORE “esteem” TO self
STORE “faith” TO God

REPLACE Negative WITH Positive , ;
Judgment WITH Acceptance , ;
Resentment WITH Forgiveness

REPLACE Hopelessness WITH Choice , ;
Confusion WITH Clarity , ;
Procrastination WITH Participation

REPLACE Separation WITH Connection , ;
Lack WITH Abundance , ;
Sorrow WITH Celebration

@ all, times SAY your_truth

If its_time
EXIT
ENDIF

ENDDO

SAVE TO Always
CLEAR ALL

RETURN

EOF: remember.prg

Merry Christmas!

 

[Psychotheosophy]

…but did ponder that perhaps Psychotheosophy could change the UserName to Psychotheosophymaticianoet …

                                     :hmmm:

…Is this thread an exercise in some kind of modelling language?..

It could be…

The focus
Is to help people
Listen to God
By way of
Natural Law

…Therefore, the Human Life Amendment factor (0), must be imposed on secular society in order to reverse an empty legal right…

Can I ask you…

What kinds of obstacles
Do you see
In imposing
The Human Life Amendment
(Or any Zero Amendment)
On secular society?

(Besides the threat of straight jackets)

 

[wynnejj]

Can I ask you…

What kinds of obstacles
Do you see
In imposing
The Human Life Amendment
(Or any Zero Amendment)
On secular society?

1. Trust in God as a Divine Providence who will intervene when the time has been reached in the temporal world on the issue of over-population. (Checkout my profile for the thread that I started entitled “Overpopulation vs Divine Providence”.)
2. Trust in God whose benefits are limitless, instead of man who says temporal life has limited resources that must be used economically and conserved such that measures must be enacted to promote, if not enforce, the concept of “quality of life” over “quantity of life”.
3. Belief that Divine Providence’s blessings are limitless, not limited, if and assuming man is willing to submit to God’s law as outlined in the Ten Commandments, thereby saying man’s actions should be limited /bounded, not limitless /boundless.
4. The Catholic Church should be the beacon by which all other faiths can calibrate their standards and belief systems. The Catholic Church must be the Bureau of Standards & Measures of what is right and what is wrong. The Body of Christ which are its members must manifest the directions of the Magisterium of the Church. This means the Bishops need to carry out these directions consistently and uniformly giving clear signals to its priests, who must in turn give clear signals to the laity, who in turn give clear signals to the rest of the world. On the issues of contraception and abortion, this clearly has not been done.
5. Institute a required prayer petition at Sunday Mass in defense of life. It is precisely because of the trivialization of gravity of the abortion issue, receiving hardly any mention at Sunday Mass in terms of prayer petitions until just recently, that I could not understand how the whole congregation could receive Holy Communion week after week without feeling the need for prayer petitions. It’s a little like the silence on the slavery issue for years until it finally came to a head leading to the outbreak of the Civil War. I started to think that maybe the bishops & clergy conspired to be silent because of concerns about the validity of overpopulation concerns and the need for population control. I couldn’t understand how Catholics receiving Our Lord week after week could be so apparently dumb & numb (not speaking & not feeling) on the abortion issue.
6. Get across the idea that contraceptive sex without God’s consent is essentially illicit sex, that is, prostitution as sex without responsibility for consequences. Preach Humanae Vitae.
7. Stop subsidizing television that promotes devaluation of the family and marriage. That means don’t subscrible to cable packages that include channels that promote this agenda. Simply limiting your viewing to the channels you deem acceptable is not enough, because in the package you buy you promote the bad channels. Learn consumer politics and vote responsibly when you subscribe.

All the above is essentially a “change the hearts & minds” and “change legislation” (both, not either/or) approach, which must start as a grass roots movement in the Catholic Church first.

 

[michael_quinlan]

Truth? Facing Fears? Scary stuff! It’s safer to sit with the self-righteousness that I know than to face my fears and love others unconditionally.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

1. Trust in God as a Divine Providence who will intervene when the time has been reached in the temporal world on the issue of over-population. (Checkout my profile for the thread that I started entitled “Overpopulation vs Divine Providence”.)
2. Trust in God whose benefits are limitless, instead of man who says temporal life has limited resources that must be used economically and conserved such that measures must be enacted to promote, if not enforce, the concept of “quality of life” over “quantity of life”.
3. Belief that Divine Providence’s blessings are limitless, not limited, if and assuming man is willing to submit to God’s law as outlined in the Ten Commandments, thereby saying man’s actions should be limited /bounded, not limitless /boundless.
4. The Catholic Church should be the beacon by which all other faiths can calibrate their standards and belief systems. The Catholic Church must be the Bureau of Standards & Measures of what is right and what is wrong. The Body of Christ which are its members must manifest the directions of the Magisterium of the Church. This means the Bishops need to carry out these directions consistently and uniformly giving clear signals to its priests, who must in turn give clear signals to the laity, who in turn give clear signals to the rest of the world. On the issues of contraception and abortion, this clearly has not been done.
5. Institute a required prayer petition at Sunday Mass in defense of life. It is precisely because of the trivialization of gravity of the abortion issue, receiving hardly any mention at Sunday Mass in terms of prayer petitions until just recently, that I could not understand how the whole congregation could receive Holy Communion week after week without feeling the need for prayer petitions. It’s a little like the silence on the slavery issue for years until it finally came to a head leading to the outbreak of the Civil War. I started to think that maybe the bishops & clergy conspired to be silent because of concerns about the validity of overpopulation concerns and the need for population control. I couldn’t understand how Catholics receiving Our Lord week after week could be so apparently dumb & numb (not speaking & not feeling) on the abortion issue.
6. Get across the idea that contraceptive sex without God’s consent is essentially illicit sex, that is, prostitution as sex without responsibility for consequences. Preach Humanae Vitae.
7. Stop subsidizing television that promotes devaluation of the family and marriage. That means don’t subscrible to cable packages that include channels that promote this agenda. Simply limiting your viewing to the channels you deem acceptable is not enough, because in the package you buy you promote the bad channels. Learn consumer politics and vote responsibly when you subscribe.

All the above is essentially a “change the hearts & minds” and “change legislation” (both, not either/or) approach, which must start as a grass roots movement in the Catholic Church first.

If
We trust
In solidarity
That God
Will impose
Legal rights,
What is the point
Of dialogue?

 

[wynnejj]

If
We trust
In solidarity
That God
Will impose
Legal rights,
What is the point
Of dialogue?

Huh? Are you ascribing “We trust in solidarity that God will impose legal rights” to something I said? How?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
…but did ponder that perhaps Psychotheosophy could change the UserName to Psychotheosophymaticianoet …

I really did mean my comment good naturedly and not to be offensive nor hurtful in any way. You lost me long ago and go way above my head entirely intellectually. I am fascinated myself about the link between psychology, theology and philosophy while having no idea whatsoever on earth how to go about the linking while I believe logically there has to be one and there can be no contradiction. That was what attracted me about your User Name in the first place. Reading your posts I thought of you as something of a poet (and a compliment)and then once formula and equations entered into the picture, of course I thought of maths and mathematician (groan! groan! groan!)!!!

I really only decided to come into the thread as your very early comment was that you were trying to generate dialogue and I’ve noticed in the past with me commenting on threads where I know I am out of my depth, that my posts sure can generate dialogue and activity …once dialogue was on the go, my plan was to opt out before I made a thorough fool of myself. Ahhhhhhh the plans of mice and men, they do sometimes go astray huh:blush:

Barb

 

[RWMorris]

No matter how diverse a nation gets, a secular society can still exist and prosper …

No it can’t, it may exist, but it will not prosper. You can’t name one nation that fits that description, past or present. Diversity dilutes morality, and once a nation no longer has a shared morality, a majority morality, with a shared sense of involitiletruth that transcends all, some one’s right to the pursuit of happiness is going to suffer.

Take, marriage for instance. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe that it is an involitiletruth that transcends all beliefs, practices, laws, religions, constitutions, supreme court opinions, or your personal “pursuit of happiness”.

I believe that this definition must be defended against all corruption. I refuse to allow my children to be indoctrinated with diversity on this subject. I refuse to respect any one’s “right” to redefine marriage.

How do we apply diversity to this situation?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Huh? Are you ascribing “We trust in solidarity that God will impose legal rights” to something I said? How?

It sounds like
You do not believe that
We should trust, in solidarity, that God will impose legal rights.

Do you think
We should dialogue
Or
We should impose legal rights?