O.K. Sochi, exactly what is your problem? You say you are here because you " used to be " Catholic and that is what you know best. So why bother us with your strange colloquy? Are you trying to get us to talk you out of it or what? If so, you don’t seem to be responding. You have been at it for a long time now, so what gives? What kind of kick do you get out of it? You know we can’t change your mind for you because it seems closed.
LOL! I’m here, it must be pretty open to do that!
Thanks for your thoughts. Glad you are starting to ask some questions.Can I ask you if you do believe in a divine creator, you just do not believe in any one form of religion to give you access to the divine creator?
There is belief and knowledge. Belief is not knowledge. Any belief, political, social, etc, even religious, or especially religious, no matter how strong the belief in what seems to make it believable, is necessarily ad hoc. Knowledge itself is limited. So to believe in a god is to know somewhere within yourself that you don’t know. So aware of it or not, “god” is a placeholder for something hypothesized and, in this case, unknowable by human means. Even if some claim that that there “is” a god knowable by “reason,” those “proofs” are faulty. They fall more correctly into the category of rationalization. As Mr. Twain said, “Man is a rationalizing animal.” If those arguments were not faulty, they would carry the same weight as a mathematical theorem, a physical principle, or a measurable object. Everyone, because of those “proofs” would necessarily “believe” the same thing, much as we do that the sun shines or that things fall. Perhaps you have noticed that this is not the case with even the 40,000 sects of christianism, never mind the other 2/3 of other faiths that make up the rest of world religions.
good question. But questions are almost always very good to ask.Interesting perspective. So what I get out of what your saying is that you think there is something greater than you. You just don’t know what/who it is. Please correct me if I’m wrong.There is belief and knowledge. Belief is not knowledge. Any belief, political, social, etc, even religious, or especially religious, no matter how strong the belief in what seems to make it believable, is necessarily ad hoc. Knowledge itself is limited. So to believe in a god is to know somewhere within yourself that you don’t know. So aware of it or not, “god” is a placeholder for something hypothesized and, in this case, unknowable by human means. Even if some claim that that there “is” a god knowable by “reason,” those “proofs” are faulty. They fall more correctly into the category of rationalization. As Mr. Twain said, “Man is a rationalizing animal.” If those arguments were not faulty, they would carry the same weight as a mathematical theorem, a physical principle, or a measurable object. Everyone, because of those “proofs” would necessarily “believe” the same thing, much as we do that the sun shines or that things fall. Perhaps you have noticed that this is not the case with even the 40,000 sects of christianism, never mind the other 2/3 of other faiths that make up the rest of world religions.
So from my perspective, belief in a god is understandable on several bases, but not one of actuality. The reasons for belief, any kind of belief, are built into human awareness, and are necessary for survival. But due to lack of introspection, and circumspection, and a host of other supporting reasons, one’s initial beliefs tend very much to stick, and few transcend them to a more universal understanding. So beliefs are in essence an insulation against what we don’t know, or don’t wish to know, so that we can function as if what we believe constitutes reality. Thus we have a sense of comfort and surety otherwise not available.
And yes, there are beliefs in science, called “hypotheses,” but those are there for the purpose of testing, not as in political or especially religious beliefs as a final answer. So beliefs have a prophylactic function as well. Does that apply to asking about god?
All that said, I am not a believer, because I know that beliefs are serving suggestions, even if they carry some aspect of accuracy. They never carry truth, for the reasons above. Nor am I an atheist, because in another subtle way, that is akin, but not equal to having a faith. I am not an agnostic, either. No reason to be any of those.
Does any of this mean that a spiritual life is a waste? Not to me, absolutely not. But my sense and understanding of what that is and means is radically different from any of the above. The difference lies in what is taken to be a/The" Divine Creator;" what that means, and what relationship to that means. I admire the Saints mentioned, and a few more in the Church, because despite not saying directly what they were at, they did, if one has ears. In my understanding, it is quite clear as to why they took that tactic, which those not in the Church coming to the same conclusion had less concern about. At least, that is so if they didn’t live in the same time and place as the highly admirabel Holy Ones mentioned.
I guess that is thoroughly confusing. I don’t see how it cannot be. The only thing I can ask is that you allow the hypothesis that there is another way, and a solid reason for it, other than the usual big three of faith, atheism, or agnosticism. Can’t help you much beyond that. Mine is more of an experiential philosophical stand than a standard faith.
I literally stumbled into it, and only after a time discovered that it has been from time immemorial, without regard to region, culture, faith or lack of it, or any other condition. And there is a good case for it being the root of all religions in a practical sense, though definitely not in the theologically explicative sense. So if theological explication is your thing, what I stand for is not your cup of tea. Nor do I in any way recommend it as a way of anything other than something potentially difficult and definitly hazardous to belief. But beyond belief lies a wondrous freedom. And a cozmic laugh!
“You” is the occlusion in the diamond.
If evidence for what Jesus actually said is ‘shoddy’ then you’ve got to be the kind of skeptic who totally mistrusts the ancient writings of Plato’s teachings,
(Mark 14:61 Douay-Rheims version) emphasis mine of course.
(John 8:58 Douay-Rheims version). Note that ‘I am’ is in present tense, in reference to the name of God given to Moses at the burning bush. (Exodus 3:14) The One Who Is, the Being Who IS existence itself. To God, there is no past or future since He is eternal and outside of time, hence the present tense. He does not use the natural grammar construction “before…I was”. He uses “before… I am”.
Good for you. The quest for truth requires intellectual honesty.
The gospels do not support this.
First, science cannot completely explain the state of existence, such as consciousness and free will. Second, science is not a good approach to provide the knowledge about God. The main problem is lack of spiritual experience. The main question is, why God does not support us people who need a bit of spiritual experience?
Who has the authority to interpret. You mean the one and only most holy Catholic Church who bought you the one and only Gospels interpreted their own book wrong?
Sochi this is the “cryptic” response we continue to mention. No-one knows what your talking about. The purpose is “communication”. Whenever your asked, no response.
You quoted my response. How can you say I didn’t make one? You can say it didn’t mean anything to you, and that is fine. And far more accurate. There are large numbers of people I could say exactly that to, even out of context, and they would laugh and agree. Cryptic is in the mind of the beholder. But let me add more: Do you really think that “you” are “you?”
Cool. That’s all there really is.
I do, thank you, with people who demonstrate a chance of getting what I would say about it. So before you have advised, I have acted. Thanks for being on board!
Funny you put it that way, because the experience freed me from mine, though my skeleton is a good and faithful servant.
Of course not!!! How silly would I be to think that. Now, at least. But my experience happened when to speak of such a thing brought suggestions of needing to be committed to the looney bin, or need of medication, if it wasn’t simply dismissed outright or piously misinterpreted. As I believe I mentioned, I did my due diligence with the clergy and literature. Useful answers were anywhere but in the Church. But thanks for the encouragement; since, I have been satisfied with my understanding of the event on several levels.
No kidding! Take a break, my friend!
Whew! I’m good then! Glad to see you perceive the mind as illusory. There may be hope.
I will concede I was not in the room with you these days in the Church, but anywhere basically means everywhere? How about here? Included? My apology for any difficult trials.You quoted my response. How can you say I didn’t make one? You can say it didn’t mean anything to you, and that is fine. And far more accurate. There are large numbers of people I could say exactly that to, even out of context, and they would laugh and agree. Cryptic is in the mind of the beholder. But let me add more: Do you really think that “you” are “you?”
Cool. That’s all there really is.
I do, thank you, with people who demonstrate a chance of getting what I would say about it. So before you have advised, I have acted. Thanks for being on board!
Funny you put it that way, because the experience freed me from mine, though my skeleton is a good and faithful servant.
Of course not!!! How silly would I be to think that. Now, at least. But my experience happened when to speak of such a thing brought suggestions of needing to be committed to the looney bin, or need of medication, if it wasn’t simply dismissed outright or piously misinterpreted. As I believe I mentioned, I did my due diligence with the clergy and literature. Useful answers were anywhere but in the Church. But thanks for the encouragement; since, I have been satisfied with my understanding of the event on several levels.
No kidding! Take a break, my friend!
Whew! I’m good then! Glad to see you perceive the mind as illusory. There may be hope.
Unlike you, I am free to think as I see fit in regards to these matters.
That “anywhere basically means everywhere” is one of the spot on accurate things I’ve read from your keyboard. Of course, in the experience we have as humans, that is not physically true, though it is so in essence. And that is kind of where I am coming from. And in that context, as well as the comment about perceiving the mind as illusory, I meant my question quite literally: Do you really think that “you” are “you?” That is about as inclusive as I can get on this topic right now.
The “I” as related to me takes on another reality when reduced to these moments, its you with a new understanding of reality when everything changes in a moment. Fragile state which requires balance with re-entry, emotional roller coaster. Time, talking, reflection, contemplation, but this doesn’t mean to withdraw either. Yes I really think I’m me, but I am connected to the we, and we are all connected as one and for sure are responsible for each other. The greater good and evil. I don’t know what that is save Jesus Christ and the Church, they indeed are one, and regardless how upset we become with them.
I hear you, oh I do feel for you, and can relate along with a good deal of others, admittedly some arrived at different conclusions. Some are still contemplating and have been a very long time, no conclusions yet. So you were convicted by the Holy Spirit or no?
Interesting statement. I can see from the standpoint of one who forgave the Church that this would be what you are led to. For me, on analysis and having discovered congruent and cognitively sound explanations elsewhere, forgiving the Church became irrelevant. The Church is a concept in my mind, then and now. It is not an entity as an institution. If it serves as a symbol and a means for some, as it has with spectacular results in some cases, for what might actually be the Christ, so be it; that is not my call and not my shoes.
I appreciate that. “Conclusions” in this context is tricky, in the sense that even if you perceive that there is a screen as an unchanging ground for the movie, the movie plays on, absolutely dependent on that substrate and the light projector with its film for its existence. Yet it is all of a piece. And the resources outside the Church in my experiencing are, as I have often hinted, are far clearer, more explicit, and much less necessary of complications inherent in a stream of teaching that, let us say, has some issues with its own Source, as far as I can see.
Interesting way to put it, and I wouldn’t, but seeing your constraint of theology, I can see why it might come out that way. “My movie” includes that as a portrayed perspective, but is not not bound by it, allowing a rather greater, as I see it, degree of appreciation and inclusion than I might otherwise have. So yes and no.
You are very welcome, Simpleas. If I am educated, (it literally means “led out of”–presumably ignorance,) it is through necessity of understanding myself as a phenomenon and as an awareness function. I hold with Einstein and Picasso that all children are geniuses, only to have it overlayed by consensus view made necessary by local ways of dealing with things. Those ways are not necessarily correct, and because they are local and survival oriented, they have trouble when they meet.*