Does God love the Devil?

[Detales]

No, Leo, it is not Gnosticism. Common mistake, so it is ok. But few Catholics or any other faith understand what that is anyway, lol! Making waves? How can one be at peace making waves? You are so habituated to waves of though passing as faith that you will be rather surprised when you experience the smooth glassy sea/C inevitabley in store for you.

As a note of clarification, it is important here that what I’ve said includes believers of the many individuated practices of Catholicism but it is by no means restricted even to religious faith of any kind. What I have to say is about belief itself. Humans have an ability to believe, and will believe darn near anything. Do you think that other faiths and non-faiths are not as sincere as any of us in our beliefs? In all honesty beliefs are generally “right” because they are ours, not because they are true-to-fact. When we think about religion, or any of our other beliefs, we tend to think of them in terms of how we are right in adhering to them and others are mistaken not to.

This is because in our own minds we have a trail of reasons that make or belief “real” for us, and make them “work.” That trail is also emotionally loaded. This is easily discernible when we compare faith, which is highly personal and vastly variable even within a denomination, to laws describing a physical phenomenon such as electricity of gravity. Call them theories, if you wish, but those work the same way for everyone. Do faiths? Or do faiths, even within a religion, cause conflict, confusion, questioning, and doubt? There is no emotional load in the acceptance of the relationship of volts, watts, and amps. It just works, because unlike religions, it is an accurate description of existence. It is not something that can be argued.

Is it an adequate resolution to claim that these contradictions are “tests” of faith? Then other religions are equally right, because adherents also have their faith in that tested. Any religion can claim “rightness” by test of faith. Clearly this is silly.

There is also a test that can be applied to religion, and Jesus gave it. Can you tell what it is? A clue: He said “I and the Father are One.” Now we are habituated by our Catholic tradition to attribute that statement to Jesus. That is well and good. But the basic error here that has been promulgated is the lack of understanding on the part of translators that in middle Eastern teaching terms there are levels of language as illustrated in the parables. Though that fact is known to some extent, the full significance of Mark 4:33,34 is clearly missed.

We know that as users of English we are immersed in a dualistic grammar as deeply as we are in air, or a fish is in water. But it is known about our language, as RA Heinlein put it, “In English, only the first person singular of the verb to be is true to fact.” The rest are convenient fictions needed solely, not soul-ly, to navigate in four dimensions with the practical necessity of the appearance of discreet entities, whether of people or things. Th ancients knew well before the physicists of our own day that the appearance of things being discreet is completely restricted to a particular level of perception we call “our world.” Jesus was of a line of Teaching that knew this. He also spoke a language that allowed the correct use of the word “I” when teaching. That use is distinctly not the use we habitually engage in in our language when we refer to our own person. In that use of “I,” therefore, in which Jesus correctly claimed Oneness with the Father, He was NOT speaking of His personal ego, but of His essential Self, another word as tricky in English as “I.” The word “Soul,” used here in its correct understanding, might work equally well.

So we could write something like this, as far as what Jesus said, in order to better grasp His intent: “I” that is to say my Soul, or Essence, is identical to the Father, my Source, and that Unity gives me the feeling of being human and and individual. I as an appearance in person the son of man, having realized the Source of my appearance in form, and knowing it completely as the only Real thing about me, have thus earned the title Christ which is attributed to me some centuries hence, as currently I am simply called a healer. What I/I heal is the rift in understanding that happens when a person forgets their essential and permanent foundation as Being One with their Source, which we call the Father."

This misunderstanding is the rift between exoteric, or public Catholicism, and its pre-Jesus origins in Self discovery. It is why in every culture and time there is some form of the injunction “Know ThySelf.” It is not a trite or trivial dictum. It is the key to correct Identity, even as Jesus has said. When it is correctly understood, the dynamic of Creation, Consciousness, God, Man, and the “devil” are in an entirely different and infinitly more practical light. Don’t believe me, please. Look for yourself and see.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I have looked, I have seen this, and you are simply wrong. You are deceived. The whole gist of your statement is geared to exaltation of the Self, and not God, meaning it is no different than the desire of our first parents to “be like gods.”

You are blinded by your error because you equate truth with sincerity. I can be sincerely WRONG.

Truth is an objective FACT and is not subject to our individual interpretations. THis is infallibly so because

A. If it is not so, you cannot assert your view as true and therefore you are wrong.
B. If it is true you are wrong for making truth a sunjective experience in consciousness.

You are wrong either way.

“have nothing to do with those who quarrel over words.”

And since you are not listening to the correction of others you are basically a heretic. Just not formally.

 

[Detales]

You have looked at your own thoughts about a decision you have made emotionally to retain your belief. By that standard what I am saying is inadmissible, and not possible of testing by your own habituation to a lens of limited perspective. Your own answer clearly indicates that you are not even clear on the terms I am using.

I emphatically do not equate truth with sincerity. I am saying that your sincerity of belief prevents you from the test that can yield an understanding of my words. Faith disallows knowledge because it is attachment to a belief that is taken for, or instead of, knowledge. Since when is faith equatable with Knowledge??? You are right, Truth is objective, and I have been asserting this all along. Faith is not objective.

And why would I listen to the “corrections” of those who proceed from a wrong premise based in tradition and emotion? What kind of silliness are you espousing? You appear to be claiming that Catholicism comes before God. Can that be? Catholicism is in your mind. Now find where your mind is, who or what is perceiving it,and maybe we can make some progress here.

Trite as it seems, “devil” is “lived” backwards. I submit that you have gone from the premise of ingenuoulsly aquired belief to a wrong conclusion, instead of having lived from examining the actual nature of your experience common to Man and built on an unshakable, uncontradictable Knowing.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

You are wrong on two points:

1. Ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? He synthesized very neatly the understanding between faith and reason. We have REASONS for our faith. Even though much transcends reason, NOTHING contradicts it. Emotion and passion do drive me, I do not deny this, and it is something I need to work on, but they need not drive me to beyond rationality.

2.No, the Church does not come before God. But God cannot be truly known apart from the Church. “what about israel?” Israel is the Church of the old COvenant, the Old people of God whom GOd revealed himself to. THey were the true church and people of God up to Pentecost, and Then the Jewish religion was abrogated by the Christian, and man finally became able to be saved.

Speaking of which, all your concern is with knowledge.

Do you know what it means to be SAVED? To know that the death within you that drives you to do the things you hate, that fills you with self-loathing which is really a twisted self-love, to know that that disgusted feeling of waking up empty inside every day and trying to fill the void with intellectualism, and scientism, and gnosto-spiritualism; to know it can be killed?

You don’t have to live with the YOU you can no longer stand. Convince your ego to commit suicide, and in dying you will find that you can be born again to live.

We need no longer fear death! “O death, where is thy victory?! O death, where is thy sting?!”

That which ruled me once will not force me to serve again.

Choose you this day whom you will Serve:

If Christ is God serve him, on HIS TERMS.

If you are God, serve yourself.

If your intellect is your God then serve your intellect (Which is the same as serving yourself)

As for me, I have come to know that Christ is the Truth and can only be truly known in the Church HE started. History itself demolishes anything you could ever say.

History coupled with revelation are twin swords that decapitate all heresies.

Your seeking after God apart from the means HE ESTABLISHED to seek him will never yield a coherent answer. And your affiliation with that ancient delusion of hinduism will only scar your soul after it has raped you of your spiritual goods.

Believe me, I have made this journey. Your mind is not strong enough to hold onto the great mystery, it is darkened and cannot be illumined but by grace, and you cannot illumine it yourself.

All your efforts will only lead to circular wanderings in the intellectual mists and haze generated by your compromise with “doctrines of demons.”

I Promise.

You are not free.

You will not ever know freedom.

Unless you know God the way HE has intended you to know him.

YIELD yourself and give up your (ir)rationalism. Offer it to him as a sacrifice of good faith, and he will honor you with a clearer understanding of himself.

I had to do that. I thought I would be lost and that I was giving up my free will and my mind.

But what good is a mind enslaved to its own delusions? SO I offered God an exchange, my pride of mind, for the hope of real knowledge of the truth…

And he delivered! When I thought I had lost all I had worked hard to understand, he did not deceive me! He honored his promise: “You will seek me and you WILL find me when you seek me with all your heart.” Jer. 29:12-13.

 

[Detales]

1. Ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? He synthesized very neatly the understanding between faith and reason. We have REASONS for our faith. Even though much transcends reason, NOTHING contradicts it. Emotion and passion do drive me, I do not deny this, and it is something I need to work on, but they need not drive me to beyond rationality.

Yes, St. Thomas was a holy genius worthy of the highest respect. That is why I credit him, as few do, with his highest accomplishment. very near the end of his life he had the ultimate realization. I have no doubt that it was exactly what Jesus intended for those who correctly heard His statement that “Iand the Father IS ONE.” But I am sure that you can concoct reasons other than that as to why St. Thomas himself said that his works, that is to say, his reasonings, were “as straw” and wished them to be burned. God, my friend Leo, is anything but reasonable, and reason is the most futile way of approaching or realizing God. But when God is known as Self, (No, silly, not that egoic self you keep insisting on!) then one has a cognitive line of reason that is all inclusive. I have been efforting to lead you to discover for yourself that it really is all backwards. It is easier toe be a cow for someone else that way, don’t you see.

2.No, the Church does not come before God. But God cannot be truly known apart from the Church. “what about israel?” Israel is the Church of the old COvenant, the Old people of God whom GOd revealed himself to. THey were the true church and people of God up to Pentecost, and Then the Jewish religion was abrogated by the Christian, and man finally became able to be saved.

Knowledge that is commensurate with Correct Identity constitutes the Church of the everlasting and indestructible Christ. The only covenant of any value ever is "I AM THAT I AM. That is the contract of any revelation regardless of the vagaries of timed interpretations and churches. Man, as Man, never was lost to be saved. You will see that. “O death, where is thy victory?! O death, where is thy sting?!” is not a promise for the the time of discorporation, it is a Now experience for those who can see.

In the mean time, do enjoy thrashing about with your twin swords. Like Myamoto Musashi, you will die anyway. But hopefully you will be awake enough when you do that to repeat again "O death…from a more alligned Standpoint. “You will seek me and you WILL find me when you seek me with all your heart.” Jer. 29:12-13. is absolutely true. You are just not done yet. But your efforting is admirable. Do keep it up, so to speak. You will be able to defeat the devil of your own self. (No, silly, the egoic one!)

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Your attempt to mesmerize wit words is fascinating. It’s like the page twists when I read it.

Do you have Faith in Christ and his Church?

Are you willing to Follow Christ on his own terms?

P.S. What I am about to say is not directed at YOU, but when I read your words I can read between them the voices whispering in your ear what to write. I know that writing style, I have seen it in channeled books, and it terrifies me. I know when a person is receiving something and brother…I KNOW you.

P.P.S. You say God cannot be known through reason. True. But what he has revealed is reasonable. You then go on to say that if you realign your perspective of God, you then have a lens through which you can know him.

Well, which is it? Can God be known through the intellect or Not?

 

[Detales]

*Do you have Faith in Christ and his Church? *Faith in the Christ is a begining step. The Church is the body of Conscious Awareness that Knows the Christ beyond faith.

Are you willing to Follow Christ on his own terms? You speak as if the Christ is a person. Jesus was a person who attained, as far as we can dubiously ascertain His historicity, the dergee of the Christ. As we know from ourt Catholic studies, Jesus only of late was actually labeled “Christ” as if it was His first name. Fascinating.

P.S. What I am about to say is not directed at YOU, but when I read your words I can read between them the voices whispering in your ear what to write. Hmmmmm… You hear voices?* I know that writing style, I have seen it in channeled books, and it terrifies me.* As well it should. Cahnneling is a state of sleep. I ssure you I am quite awake and not listenig to your voices when I write, lol! I know when a person is receiving something and brother…I KNOW you. Fancy that. And we haven’t even met! I would agree that you know your thought projection of what you think I am, but I assure you, based on your ability to disagree and question, you are far from knowing me as I am.

P.P.S. You say God cannot be known through reason. True. But what he has revealed is reasonable. That depends on what you call revalation and who is interprtetig it according to what.* You then go on to say that if you realign your perspective of God, you then have a lens through which you can know him.* I said more like that if you allign your pespective with God, the lens is comparatively clear and not based on belief.

Well, which is it? Can God be known through the intellect or Not? Not. That is why Winged Victory has no head.

 

[Oreoracle]

Detales, you will not know peace.

Is that a threat to him, or a prophecy? Ohh…are you a prophet!?

First, you are on a forum of Catholics, that means virtually everyone here is opposed to YOU or at least your beliefs. Specifically your brand of neo-Hinduism trying to incorporate elements of Christianity.

I’m sure Detales has pointed this out, but this certainly isn’t neo-Hinduism. What Detales speaks of is more or less just a perspective; loosely, a perspective that intends to encompass all perspectives. Some call it “Absolute Truth.” Me, I try to shy away from flashy terms.

GNOSTICISM.

Gnosticism is the belief that things pertaining to and of gods can be known. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the Catholic Church preaches gnosticism (otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to say they know certain things about God).

We can swim buddy.

It looks like you’ll have to; I think your boat sprang a leak!

 

[Shaken]

My baby sister says, yes.

Maybe God plans to bring them back into the fold some time.

 

[jimcintosh]

Well, time to unsubscribe. The conversation was interesting while it stayed on point. It has now somewhat devolved into something else.

I go giving only this one piece of advice: Ignore this person. He or she came here, to a Catholic board, to cause problems. You will never convert them. They came here to stir up a ruckus and will continue doing so ad infinitum.

If you were go to a Mormon-only board, why would you do so? Just to **** off the Mormons. I doubt you would have any real desire to convert or to even converse honestly.

This person has come here to do the same – play around with the Catholics.

Writing them will serve no end because he or she is not here honestly, but rather only to muck with us. Ignore them.

Bueno. Ya me voy. Chao.

 

[Detales]

Hi Oreo, great to hear from you again. Good stuff.

Too bad Jimcintosh has unsubscribed. Had Jim stayed on, I would point out to him that the conversation not only stayed on point, it attempted to gain depth. It is one thing to stay in one’s story-book acceptance of a religion. It is another to examine deeply the sources within oneself, in one’s culture, and in history to discover where from and why we believe what we do.

The religions exoterically presented as the “World’s Great Religions” ave a monumental, glaring, and tragic flaw. Very few can get past this, due to deep habituation, which we know is in fact indistinguishable from chemical addiction at the cellular level. This is why, traditionally, the Knowledge from which the Abrahamic religions devolved required, among other possibilities, the administration of some sort shock as part of the introductions to clearing one’s self of habitual limits in understanding the root of actual spirituality.

Greatly simplified, the fundamental error might be delineated thus: Let us assume that most Abrahamic religionists would agree, whatever their denomination, that all humans are children of the God. That means that this relationship with God is inherent in the structure of Soul. This is a pre-existing condition of every person who ever was or will be born, whether in the ages before and during Jesus or Mohamed taught, or after they are long forgotten. So we might agree that relationship with God is a structural component of the make up of Man.

Now of all the Men who ever lived or will live, few, very few, so far have heard of Jesus or Mohamed or the coming Messiah, despite the very large numbers of folks on this poor Earth today. About one third of our current population is currently labeled “Christian” of any denominating or sect, with some doubt as to the complete and accurate devotion of all of these members to their particular creeds, including Catholics, as shown by pew surveys. Take one yourself, and see.

So on one hand we have all these humans all structurally related to God, but a very wide spectrum of belief about that relationship. It ranges from “I’m saved!” to “I’m going to heaven because I’m good,” to “eh…” to “There is no God.” But a notable factor in all these varieties of religious adherence or not, is that they are all acquisitions after the fact. In other words, people learn their religious orientation, as distinct from having the primary relationship of “child of God.”

So, my question is, is the way to know God by examination of the universal structural relationship of the status of child, and how that happens and is experienced, or is it more reasonable to think that the way to God is through the argumentation of divisive and exclusive bundles of content acquired by very local experience? Is our way to discover our actual status, then. through self knowledge of our inherent structure which is Universally true for everyone, or through ad-hoc traditions that are tainted with doubt, ignorance, choice, chance, tradition, power struggles, interpretations, additions, subtractions, collections, hearsays, and even subterfuge, crimes and murder? Are these ad-hocs any more valid because of unprovable and dubious claims of lineage?

So to me it seems to be a matter of structure vs content. ON this forum, there is a lot of content in the form of dogma, beliefs and traditions. None of it speaks to the primary fact of human existence. Few even ever name it. It is too obvious.

Yet there has been a tradition of Teaching, of which, if He actually lived, Jesus was by proof of His statements a part of. That Teaching has not and never will have to do with churchianity. That Teaching has to do with structure and bypasses contents. And that is Jim’s dismay with this thread. All the stories of God and the devil are contents of a mind that thrives, and indeed needs, belief. But about the last thing we as humans will do is admit that we live by the rules of our stories, parochial as they might be, rather than by facts, especially the facts of our own nature.

All I have done one here is to challenge the idea of belief of anything as a viable form of interpreting the ultimate human possibility: Conscious union with the Divine. It has been my observation and experience that faith is the greatest prophylactic in accomplishing this, because the person who has faith thinks they know. THINKS they know!!! And thinking you know is the death of learning and of Knowledge.

That is all for now; I have to tend to other matters. Thank you for your attention.

 

[Areopagite]

Yes, St. Thomas was a holy genius worthy of the highest respect. That is why I credit him, as few do, with his highest accomplishment. very near the end of his life he had the ultimate realization. I have no doubt that it was exactly what Jesus intended for those who correctly heard His statement that “Iand the Father IS ONE.” But I am sure that you can concoct reasons other than that as to why St. Thomas himself said that his works, that is to say, his reasonings, were “as straw” and wished them to be burned.

We can concoct reasons other than what? What is the reason you think Aquinas was unsatisfied with his writings? I’m unclear what you’re arguing.

Are you arguing that Aquinas actually disagreed with his work after this revelation? Or are you arguing (as I would) that his work was so small compared to the truth he now saw? Does “straw” carry with it a sense of “erroneousness” or “lowliness.”

And for the record, Virgil wanted to burn the Aenid, Mark Twain wanted to burn Huckleberry Finn, and … there were some others too.

God, my friend Leo, is anything but reasonable, and reason is the most futile way of approaching or realizing God. But when God is known as Self, (No, silly, not that egoic self you keep insisting on!) then one has a cognitive line of reason that is all inclusive.

Um … you say that God is unreasonable and then you offer a way to look at God reasonably. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

Gnosticism is the belief that things pertaining to and of gods can be known. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, the Catholic Church preaches gnosticism (otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to say they know certain things about God).

You are using an uncommon definition of “gnosticism” here. If you look at any encyclopedia and dictionary, the prominent use of the term is one that pertains to the early Church heresy that believed the body and soul were radically separate, such that the soul’s natural state was to be released from the body, since the soul was created by God, and the body (as well as all physical existence) had been created by an evil God (sometimes called the Demiurge or even the Devil). Gnosticism also had an element that salvation … that is, the correct separation of body and soul … could be achieved through certain esoteric knowledge. There were varying strands of Gnosticism with differentiating doctrines to them. I have never heard of your definition of Gnosticism. I looked at various sources (dictionaries and encylopediaes) and found nothing of what you claim Gnosticism is. Perhaps it’s used in special senses with regard to certain studies, but it’s definitely not the common usage.

 

[Areopagite]

The religions exoterically presented as the “World’s Great Religions” ave a monumental, glaring, and tragic flaw.

I think I detected what flaw you think these religions have, but I might have missed it. If I did, I apologize.

Let us assume that most Abrahamic religionists would agree, whatever their denomination, that all humans are children of the God.

If you are correct that all the Abrahamic religions believe this, then you may have a point with the rest of what you say. However, Catholicism does not believe this. They believe that only the baptized are the children of God (specifically, the adopted Children of God).

Now, perhaps the “Children of God” can be used in a broader sense of referring to “anyone made in the image of God” … but I think this rarely if ever used in Church History. Perhaps I’m wrong.

The point is, the Church does not believe that God is found naturally in us or naturally in childhood or anything like that. Divine truth exists separate from us, and it is through grace that one learns of God’s nature and truly becomes one with God. Obviously you may disagree, but I’m just setting the record straight: the Catholic Church does not believe all humans are the Children of God.

That means that this relationship with God is inherent in the structure of Soul. This is a pre-existing condition of every person who ever was or will be born, whether in the ages before and during Jesus or Mohamed taught, or after they are long forgotten. So we might agree that relationship with God is a structural component of the make up of Man.

One again, no. Catholics do not agree with this. I don’t think Jesus or even Mohamed said anything like that either.

Now of all the Men who ever lived or will live, few, very few, so far have heard of Jesus or Mohamed or the coming Messiah, despite the very large numbers of folks on this poor Earth today. About one third of our current population is currently labeled “Christian” of any denominating or sect, with some doubt as to the complete and accurate devotion of all of these members to their particular creeds, including Catholics, as shown by pew surveys. Take one yourself, and see.

Catholics do not deny these facts. They are very aware of it. That is why it is imperative that we spread the Gospels. Christ Himself told us to do this. That is why we have missionaries. To preach the Gospel and baptize all nations.

So, my question is, is the way to know God by examination of the universal structural relationship of the status of child, and how that happens and is experienced, or is it more reasonable to think that the way to God is through the argumentation of divisive and exclusive bundles of content acquired by very local experience?

I would say neither. The essence of divine knowledge does not consist in argumentation (divisive or otherwise). The Church has always firmly held that the faith required for salvation cannot be proved. It can be defended against accusations that try to show that it’s irrational and contradictory, but it cannot be proved. Faith is the knowledge of God (though not the complete knowledge of God, but a mixture of knowledge and belief … it is only with the beautific vision where we receive full knowledge). Faith is a divine gift, and hence knowledge of God cannot naturally be found in us (to say otherwise, I think, would be very prideful).

 

[Areopagite]

Is our way to discover our actual status, then. through self knowledge of our inherent structure which is Universally true for everyone, or through ad-hoc traditions that are tainted with doubt, ignorance, choice, chance, tradition, power struggles, interpretations, additions, subtractions, collections, hearsays, and even subterfuge, crimes and murder? Are these ad-hocs any more valid because of unprovable and dubious claims of lineage?

You claim that knowledge of God is found in ourselves, but are not people too tainted with these very same things as well? Does this not present the same or similar problem?

So to me it seems to be a matter of structure vs content. ON this forum, there is a lot of content in the form of dogma, beliefs and traditions. None of it speaks to the primary fact of human existence. Few even ever name it. It is too obvious.

What do you mean by “Human existence” here? Human nature? If so, we talk a lot about that.

Yet there has been a tradition of Teaching, of which, if He actually lived, Jesus was by proof of His statements a part of. That Teaching has not and never will have to do with churchianity.

What’s your source on this? The New Testament? Because if you’re using some other source (Gnostic Gospels?), then we have to get into a history debate.

That Teaching has to do with structure and bypasses contents. And that is Jim’s dismay with this thread. All the stories of God and the devil are contents of a mind that thrives, and indeed needs, belief. But about the last thing we as humans will do is admit that we live by the rules of our stories, parochial as they might be, rather than by facts, especially the facts of our own nature.

Do you deny that stories can expresses truths (or “facts”) of human nature? I for one think that all (good) stories do that. Not just the Bible even.

All I have done one here is to challenge the idea of belief of anything as a viable form of interpreting the ultimate human possibility: Conscious union with the Divine. It has been my observation and experience that faith is the greatest prophylactic in accomplishing this, because the person who has faith thinks they know. THINKS they know!!! And thinking you know is the death of learning and of Knowledge.

I appreciate your concern that so many people (and even Catholics) “think they know.” I’m a fan of Socrates’ phrase: “I know that I do not know.” However, I think this should obviously be understood to mean that “compared to the gods, we know nothing … because the gods know infinitely more than us” so as to guard against assuming more than one actually knows. Socrates, I think, obviously did not mean that he literally knew nothing, otherwise he would be contradicting himself. He meant we know very little, even the wisest of humans. If we think we pretty much know everything, then, yes indeed, that is the death of learning and of knowledge. I agree.

However, by the very meaning of “faith” it implies that one does not have full knowledge of God. Faith, as said before, is a mixture of knowledge and belief, and in this life, when we grow in our faith, we grow in that knowledge. To think that one can have knowledge of God without some kind of faith is, I think, a bit arrogant. And can’t one accuse you, Detales, of “thinking that you know.” You have made claims regarding how one attains union with the divine. This obviously implies that you supposedly have knowledge of God. What makes you exempt from intellectual pride and error in these matters?

 

[Detales]

Areo:

What is the reason you think Aquinas was unsatisfied with his writings?…Are you arguing that Aquinas actually disagreed with his work after this revelation? Or are you arguing (as I would) that his work was so small compared to the truth he now saw? Does “straw” carry with it a sense of “erroneousness” or “lowliness.” Yes, so small that he thought that they were worthy of burning. That was his assessment from his new point of perception. Does that discredit his works? Only in the sense that once you are on the roof, you are off the ladder that got you there and instead of climbing you can look around. yes, there were others, including probably everyone else who has ever written anything of value. Do his writings help many reach perspectives outside their current perceptions? Of course. But those ought be measured on the scale of his final transcendent realization.

God is un-reasonable, ie reasoning tells you nothing about God. It only adds thoughts about God to one’s own inventory of limited perceptions. Knowing God is a vastly and qualitatively different matter than thoughts, beliefs, or religions about God. Such are the stuff of anthropomorphism as in Catholic and other religions.

Whatever Oreoracle’s definition of gnosticism might be, and he is in one aspect correct, what I espouse is not gnosticism by any definition.

I think I detected what flaw you think these religions have OK, what is it, then, in your own words?

Catholic Church does not believe all humans are the Children of God. Then according to the Church, who made them and where did they come from? I thought that God is the Father of humanity, having “created” all that exists. By your reasoning, then, are parts of creation God’s and others not? Does not God offer His Love impartially to all? I’m a Catholic, and I “believe” that all Men are the children of God since He “created” us. This is where your belief system starts dividing things that are the same into categories that are arbitrary by belief, not knowledge. But tell me, what is the point, then, of the parable of the lost sheep?

it is imperative that we spread the Gospels. Christ Himself told us to do this. That is why we have missionaries. To preach the Gospel and baptize all nations. Why is it imperative to hook people into an incomplete exoteric teaching? So you can feel legitimized by the agreement of ignorant believers? If you read the commision, what’s left of it after translation, does it say "make all men Catholics? Remember, what He taught and the present day teaching bear little if any resemblance to each other. The entire premise is different in the original, and our language does not even accomodate the idea inherent in it.

*The Church has always firmly held that the faith required for salvation cannot be proved.It can be defended against accusations that try to show that it’s irrational and contradictory, but it cannot be proved. Faith is the knowledge of God (though not the complete knowledge of God, but a mixture of knowledge and belief … it is only with the beautific vision where we receive full knowledge). Faith is a divine gift, and hence knowledge of God cannot naturally be found in us (to say otherwise, I think, would be very prideful). * Well, that is very sad. But is faith knowledge or not? If it cannot be proved, how is it knowledge? How do you tell that faith is correct? Because it is your faith? Because you have unprovable “proofs” that back up your version as distinct from someone else’s? How well would that work in physics or math??? You see, it is all contents, and none of it refers to the nature of the vessel itself. That constitutes plowing in the wrong field. I might say that the prideful knowledge you refer to is claims to knowledge about God, which is all religions. Faith is always neccesary as a remedy for desperation when knowledge is absent.

 

[Detales]

You claim that knowledge of God is found in ourselves, No, I claim that application of attention to the structure of one’s awareness patterns pursued to the discovery of their root in Consciousness can yield Knowledge, Salvation, The Peace that Passeth Understanding, the Beatific Vision, Realization, whatever you wish to call it. Experience it and decide for yourself if it can even be named.

but are not people too tainted with these very same things as well? Does this not present the same or similar problem? Kind of twisted semantics, but I think what you are describing is faith. Yes, we all have faith in our story, whatever it is, until we see through it to understand what it is that we truly are before we acquire our beliefs about ourselves.

What do you mean by “Human existence” here? Human nature? If so, we talk a lot about that. You skipped a part here, as you did almost everywhere else. I said “the primary fact of human existence.” What is the primary fact that can be stated about human existence that is true for every human of any description of any time, place, or culture?

What’s your source on this? Any Bible with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

Do you deny that stories can expresses truths (or “facts”) of human nature? I for one think that all (good) stories do that. Not just the Bible even. No, I not only don’t deny it, I am holding that up as evidence of both our ability to be bamboozled by faith and to transcend it. Why in heaven’s name do you think Jesus spoke in parables? But remember Mark 4:33,34.

*However, I think this should obviously be understood to mean that… * “In the All Nations Barber Shop of Fresno, California, a barber and another man shot each other to death over the true meaning of certain passages of the Bible.” (San Jose News, May 1969) Are you one of those guys come back to try again?

Faith, as said before, is a mixture of knowledge and belief, Yes, conjectural, intellectual, or emotional “knowledge.” Not factual. Did you meet Jesus and talk with Him? My guess is you would today take Him for a terrorist at least and a blasphemer, and try to do Him on the cross again. Were you there for all the councils and tribunals and diets, etc, armed with accurate unbiased knowledge verified by the participants? You can’t even get three out of ten people to agree on what happened at the scene of an accident, or even an internationally televised wedding. Eve played a game called “telephone?” Tried to translate written Hebrew or Aramaic with its lack of punctuation, capitalization, no vowels, and entirely different mind set toward the world and different grammar?

“Know ThySelf”

 

[Areopagite]

Yes, so small that he thought that they were worthy of burning. That was his assessment from his new point of perception. Does that discredit his works? Only in the sense that once you are on the roof, you are off the ladder that got you there and instead of climbing you can look around. yes, there were others, including probably everyone else who has ever written anything of value. Do his writings help many reach perspectives outside their current perceptions? Of course. But those ought be measured on the scale of his final transcendent realization.

I agree completely.

God is un-reasonable, ie reasoning tells you nothing about God. It only adds thoughts about God to one’s own inventory of limited perceptions. Knowing God is a vastly and qualitatively different matter than thoughts, beliefs, or religions about God. Such are the stuff of anthropomorphism as in Catholic and other religions.

You could also say that reasoning by itself doesn’t tell you anything period. One must start with intuitions of reality to plug into reasoning processes. However, once you receive knowledge of God (however one manages to do it), can’t you infer things about God, based on one’s knowledge?

I think I detected what flaw you think these religions have OK, what is it, then, in your own words?

Oh, yeah, sorry. Would it be: Abrahamic religions are wrong to seek knowledge of God from possible external sources, for the knowledge of God is inside us (i.e. human nature) since we are children of God. Is this what you’re saying? Or am I totally off? I am off, please summarize it for me (in one sentence … or two).

Catholic Church does not believe all humans are the Children of God. Then according to the Church, who made them and where did they come from? I thought that God is the Father of humanity, having “created” all that exists. By your reasoning, then, are parts of creation God’s and others not? Does not God offer His Love impartially to all? I’m a Catholic, and I “believe” that all Men are the children of God since He “created” us. This is where your belief system starts dividing things that are the same into categories that are arbitrary by belief, not knowledge.

The reason why the Church makes the distinction between Children of God and God’s creatures, is that any created being does not share in divine nature. Human nature is human nature. Divine nature is divine nature. However, when we are in a state of grace, we start to share in the divine nature, because we regain union with God. To truly be a Child of God, that Child must share the nature of His Parent. If not, the creature is not a Child but a created thing.

I would agree though that if by our very nature are Children of God, then we can study ourselves and find God within us naturally, since we would naturally have divine nature.

But tell me, what is the point, then, of the parable of the lost sheep?

My interpretation (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the lost sheep is one who apostatized from the Church but was brought back.

Why is it imperative to hook people into an incomplete exoteric teaching? So you can feel legitimized by the agreement of ignorant believers?

Why do you say that the teaching is not complete?

The reason why spreading the Gospel is imperative is, quite literally and simply, Christ said so. He used the imperative tone, and thus it by definition becomes imperative.

Now, why would Christ make that command? Why would Christ demand that union with God be provided by an external institution? Well, one reason (as I’ve heard explained) is that if it’s all inside people, there is a great deal of room for rationalization and lying to oneself without anyone to check you. Also, with an institution, it concretizes divine reality much more than mere esoteric practice, and hence makes it more human … something we can relate to much more. Also, it brings one into community with others, whereas esoteric practices tend to segregate people, causing one to pay to much attention to the self.

Those are some reasons.

 

[Areopagite]

If you read the commision, what’s left of it after translation, does it say "make all men Catholics? Remember, what He taught and the present day teaching bear little if any resemblance to each other. The entire premise is different in the original, and our language does not even accomodate the idea inherent in it.

Well, that’s quite a claim. And you need to back that up.

Even though Christ didn’t literally say, “Make all men Catholics” that doesn’t mean His words don’t carry the equivalent meaning. For what it’s worth, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, shows in his writings that the term “Catholic” was already in use (and that was c. 100 AD).

Well, that is very sad. But is faith knowledge or not? If it cannot be proved, how is it knowledge?

Faith is a “shadowy knowledge.” It does not provide us with the complete beatific vision, but it provides us with enough knowledge to love God and work for salvation.

Also, just because faith cannot be proved does not mean it’s not knowledge. Much of our natural knowledge cannot be proved, but it is no less knowledge. Mathematical axioms and first principles are intuited and cannot be proved. All reasoning depends on epistemic starting points that cannot be proved, otherwise they would not be starting points.

How do you tell that faith is correct? Because it is your faith? Because you have unprovable “proofs” that back up your version as distinct from someone else’s?

Sorry to disappoint you, but how do we know that first principles and mathematical axioms are correct? We just know.

Likewise, with divine faith, it’s something we receive. And when possessing it, we just know (I know that may sound grotesque … but alas).

How well would that work in physics or math???

Physics and math can be proven from natural first principles. Christianity cannot. They are different. Hence the Christian faith cannot be proven. However, physics and math rely on naturally intuited starting points that must be accepted on a natural faith, for they cannot be proved.

You see, it is all contents, and none of it refers to the nature of the vessel itself. That constitutes plowing in the wrong field.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

I might say that the prideful knowledge you refer to is claims to knowledge about God, which is all religions. Faith is always neccesary as a remedy for desperation when knowledge is absent.

And there you seem to say that you DO have knowledge of God, right? And yet people who have faith are the prideful ones? What? I’m sorry if I’m grossly misunderstanding you.

 

[Areopagite]

You claim that knowledge of God is found in ourselves, No, I claim that application of attention to the structure of one’s awareness patterns pursued to the discovery of their root in Consciousness can yield Knowledge, Salvation, The Peace that Passeth Understanding, the Beatific Vision, Realization, whatever you wish to call it. Experience it and decide for yourself if it can even be named.

I guess the keywords “pursued to the discovery of their root.” I’m not sure what you mean by “root” I think. Like, “ultimate cause?” Obviously God is the root and final cause of everything. So, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying.

I said “the primary fact of human existence.” What is the primary fact that can be stated about human existence that is true for every human of any description of any time, place, or culture?

I don’t know what you mean by “primary.” Many things can be stated about humans at any time. For example, humans are: rational, biological, male or female, body and soul, creatures, things that want to love and be loved, naturally made for knowledge, naturally made to be emotional. Etc.

What’s your source on this? Any Bible with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

None of my Catholic Bibles said “What the Church teaches today does not match Christ’s message in the Bible.” Sorry.

I am holding that up as evidence of both our ability to be bamboozled by faith and to transcend it. Why in heaven’s name do you think Jesus spoke in parables? But remember Mark 4:33,34.

Are you saying that faith is purposely designed to deceive us?

“In the All Nations Barber Shop of Fresno, California, a barber and another man shot each other to death over the true meaning of certain passages of the Bible.” (San Jose News, May 1969) Are you one of those guys come back to try again?

Yep. That’s me. It didn’t take you long. Very impressive.

Yes, conjectural, intellectual, or emotional “knowledge.” Not factual.

I’m not sure how you are distinguishing facts from intellectual knowledge.

Did you meet Jesus and talk with Him? My guess is you would today take Him for a terrorist at least and a blasphemer, and try to do Him on the cross again.

Probably. In fact, I crucify Him everyday. It’s disgusting.

Are you perfect?

Were you there for all the councils and tribunals and diets, etc, armed with accurate unbiased knowledge verified by the participants? You can’t even get three out of ten people to agree on what happened at the scene of an accident, or even an internationally televised wedding. Eve played a game called “telephone?” Tried to translate written Hebrew or Aramaic with its lack of punctuation, capitalization, no vowels, and entirely different mind set toward the world and different grammar?

I am not the one who have made these claims (except only as a messenger). The Church is the one making these claims. And if the Church wasn’t guided by the Holy Spirit, we would be in a very big mess indeed.

Now, if you claim the Church is wrong, then YOU are the one who believes you can see past all the confusing and chaotic history and get to the real truth about God. I, however, am not claiming that.

 

[Detales]

However, once you receive knowledge of God (however one manages to do it), can’t you infer things about God, based on one’s knowledge? The key word here is “about,” as it has been all along and ever will be in matters of faith. And please understand, that I am arguing against faith as taken by people who substitute it for knowledge, whether that faith be religious, scientific, or political. Belief about is never and cannot be experience of. Therefore, any inference about God, God being Totality, Unity, Allness, etc, any of the synonyms that might be used, cannot be know as parts or about. including the actuality or existence “of,” because that constitutes intellectual knowledge only. Intellectual knowledge is contents, similar to the software in the doohickey you are typing to me by means of. It is NOT the electricity powering it. And even if you stuck your finger in the socket, all you could say is that you experienced power, and scream “Ouch!” But that would be, being experiential, closer to an “understanding” of God than all your intellections of all you theologians taken together and multiplied a thousandfold.

Oh, yeah, sorry. Would it be: Abrahamic religions are wrong to seek knowledge of God from possible external sources, for the knowledge of God is inside us (i.e. human nature) since we are children of God. Is this what you’re saying? Or am I totally off? I am off, please summarize it for me (in one sentence … or two). Pretty good attempt. The Abrahamic religions are exoteric and ascending in form. they, as I repeatedly say, rely on acquired contents that requires faith based on arguable premises. Knowledge is based, and can only be based, on the only thing that does not require external proof or argumentation. That knowledge is I AM. disciplined examination of the fact I AM, which is not a thought, can yield actual understanding of the nature of Man/God. It is plowing in the right field and will yield fruit congruent with all other such vintners.

The reason why the Church makes the distinction between Children of God and God’s creatures, is that any created being does not share in divine nature. Human nature is human nature. Divine nature is divine nature. However, when we are in a state of grace, we start to share in the divine nature, because we regain union with God. To truly be a Child of God, that Child must share the nature of His Parent. If not, the creature is not a Child but a created thing. Yes, this is an exoteric and conjectural structure that results in separation and power struggle based on lack and a delayed reward. It is totally a human dynamic, and one of the reasons that among others, Catholicism is a materialistic and anthropomorphic faith system based on familial structure and authority. Use it if you like, benefit from it if you will, all that is well and good. But it is not, emphatically not spiritual knowledge.

My interpretation (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the lost sheep is one who apostatized from the Church but was brought back. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ALL the sheep are the children of God. Do you have children? Would you love one less if it did wrong, or call it not yours? The action of the child may separate it from you as far as conscious relationship, but it is nevertheless your child. All the components of the human matrix are there, and everything you gave it are there. Disown it if you can. It would be only a mental/emotional disassociation.

Why do you say that the teaching is not complete? By now you ought to be getting a clue about that. It is a belief, not knowledge. The Great Commission may very well be actual. But it is not meant to be one of acquiring converts to a belief. It is meant to show a way of transformation, as has been the tradition for thousands of years from before Jesus discovered it for HimSelf. Did you look up Mark 4:33,34? Did you ever study the actual history of the Church from the perspective of impartial history, as distinct from having an agenda of proof? Do you understand ascending/descending and exoteric/ esoteric in terms of religious study? Do you understand why and how certain ideas and structures inherent in Eastern languages don’t cross into English? Do you understand by consideration how that might effect translations and understanding of some rather ignorant though pious people? Etc, etc, etc.