How to argue?

[warpspeedpetey]

Must take off (not at warp speed, thank God!)

hey! whats that sposed to mean?

 

[grannymh]

hey! whats that sposed to mean?

I wouldn’t want to start any argument since I am clueless as to how to argue. But in my humble opinion, it means that you are slowing down.

Blessings
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I wouldn’t want to start any argument since I am clueless as to how to argue. But in my humble opinion, it means that you are slowing down.

Blessings
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

im either out of dilithium crystals, or scottie is asleep at the switch! wake up scottie!

 

[JDaniel]

JustHuman

Thank You. I am Catholic by choice but avoid apologetics because I recognize that I find apologetics offensive to me intellectually. Somehow I ended up inside through an extremely narrow path where words like aniconic, aconceptual, silent, symbolic and so forth are given alot of room and where the mystery is not prematurely packaged into dogma. Salman Rushdie says that atheists (like himself) are “obsessed with God”. At times I have met so-called atheists that were more courageous in facing and accepting reality than many so-called believers.

May you find acceptance and blessing here.

Chancellor

Chancellor:

That is an amazing insight. And, it is a great help to me at this time.

Thank you,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

jd, That sentence no way implies the necessity of no God! That sentence, to me, simply refers to the observation that whatever label is put on someone, there are way more “hats” worn by that person than that one label indicates. Some of these hats include or exclude areas of experience, knowledge, whatever, under other hats of the same or other persons. Under any one of these, any person may be “saner” or not than another person, eg a believer vs an atheist in a matter of particular skill or expertise. That may distribute as well over “wearers of groups of hats” (people) as well.

Certainly I exist as a perception in your mind. That is mutual. That perception, though, is not equal to the person as such, or to that person as part of a continuum.

You will always have the body needed to express your state of being, this life or next, lol! “This is always already the “other” world.”

My Mentor defined “soul” as “The feeling of being ‘I am.’” Stability is a matter of being grounded in THAT, as all contents of mind are indeed by their nature temporary. What there is to look forward to is an increasingly rich experience of what might be called “the Beatific Vision” if you want to keep it forward somewhere like a carrot. Soul is unassailable and permanent. Perception and experience of it may be built by assiduous self examination, preferably guided by someone who’s permanently there. “Gnothi Seauton.” That is why it is not good to put too much stock in dogma, books and argumentation. Too easy to get lost, especially if one is too much right brain. God is All. Parts is parts.

Thank you very much, Detales. You have said some things that will give me a bunch to think about. In fact, your post reminds me of the story of how L. Ron Hubbard came to the conclusion that there had to be a “soul”. He called the soul principle, theta, and an individual soul, he called a Thetan.

Prior to his epiphany, if you will, he believed only in MEST (matter, energy, space, and time). Then he witnessed something that MEST could not possibly do: that is, to have a sublime relationship with another MEST thing. He witnessed two people, in fixed, loving stares at one another, in what was an existential exposure of something much greater than any of his myriad observations and experiments on MEST had ever shown to him. He instantly knew that there were some things there that transcended matter, energy, space, and time.

It is my understanding that at this point in his life he was a confirmed atheist. Also, he was on his way to some government group to deliver a speech on the Meaning of MEST.

It is unknown, at this time, if he ever changed his mind about the existence of a god, but, he knew, at least, that we have souls. The rest of his “science” was based upon the implications of theta and theta’s impingement on MEST.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I just want to add something about the problem of existence and existential meltdowns, although I write in plain-speak, not with the “tongues of angels” or philosophers/mathematicians, so please bear with my humble offering.

There are so many topics/sub-topics I’d like to comment on, but I’ll just cover a couple since I have to catch a plane, and time is limited. No time to dissect words or parse thoughts/concepts/opinions.

We are all dying – whatever our age is, as is the human condition from birth. The purpose of our existence is to seek and find TRUTH. We can come to the TRUTH when “you seek Me with all your heart, you will find me.” (Of course, I should look up the reference; please excuse me this time). We may have an “epiphany” in our lifetime as did Dedalus (if I recall the name correctly) in James Joyce’s “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” in which he discovered, not God per se, but that GOODNESS, TRUTH, AND BEAUTY were one and the same. The Spirit leads us on the path we are on through genetics, our choices, the environment – all according to God’s will.

In the 16th century, St. Teresa of Avila, along with spiritual directors of the time, considered the soul to be host to the intellect and the will, while the emotions were on a lesser plane (if memory doesn’t completely fail me). Nowadays, we don’t express this sentiment, but it conveys a certain reality, or way of thought that explains our condition. Perhaps.

As for “existential tweaking”, it may be that most of us need to be struck off our high horses. I know I did. In college I went through a devastating experience, probably set off by events in my life as well as a pseudo-intellectual interpretation of philosophy/psychology courses that led to the feelings of “angst” common among youth and often adults as well.

However, God eventually rescued me because I went seeking Him a few years out of school. Btw, my education is no where near the venerable posters, having a mere B.S. in Elementary Education. However, I did try to continue my education and took several math courses but got derailed by another pregnancy. (I love my children dearly and desperately and want for them the very best–faith in God’s purpose for them). Anyhow, God rewarded me with “signs and wonders” which I don’t expect anyone to believe seeing I, myself, would be hesitant to believe anyone else’s experiences. One poster has this quote at the bottom of his/her posts: “Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.” (Blaise Pascal)

As for jd, surely you jest. Are you playing philosophical trivia? I have a question for you: Please tell me how many angels are there dancing on the head of a pin (lol). That’s an old philosophical conundrum.

Must take off (not at warp speed, thank God!)
God bless all posting on this site. It’s one of the best, although I still have much more exploring to do. Just a rookie!

Thanks, Rookie. Good post. But I am being serious - I’m not jesting. I am on this forum for the primary purpose of finding that supreme argument, or, reality, if you will, that will derail my loose affinity with and for religion. If I can’t find it, I will pretty safely conclude that there is none.

In the mean time, I am, so far, quite convinced by the cosmological and ontological arguments. But, obviously, there is always that lingering feeling that it is impossible to be sure of anything. We see water up ahead and it is only a mirage. A friend of mine told me to go and make love (to my wife), then, come back and tell him that illusion is all that there is. It worked, at the time, but, all of that has since faded into the realm of rumor. She passed on a few years ago from cancer.

Obviously, for me, the end-time might be of greater importance than for almost everyone else on this forum. For most, the exigency of “death” is extraordinarily remote. For me, it has brought itself much closer.

Again, much thanks,
jd

 

[Detales]

Having taken a number of courses from the Church of Scientology, I know whereof you speak. They are still after me to join, but that is another story, as I seem to have made a particular kind of impression on the people who tesed me on exiting one of the courses.

I am a voracious reader of RA Heinlein, who was twice a great freind of LRH. They were “writing buddies.” I have an extensive collection of each.

My impression is that Scientologists believe in God, but not the way that christianists do. I posted a url pertinent to that on the thread called “Do Scientologists Believe in God” It is a point of great frustration for me that this forum seems impenatrable to the idea that there are perceptions and insights about God that are totally alien to the christianist or Abrahamic view. I would think that in a forum such as this, there would be at least an acknowledgement of that dynamic. It would though, in terms of intellectual honesty, be useful to actualy account for those other views. All that goes with what I consider to be a predominent either/or mentality on here that is not inclusive of other possibilities that yet include one or both sides of the either/or. (both/and)

Again, I am coming from a position that forced me outside the Church to find a reasonable explanation for a mode of experience that I and many like me have had. We have yet to discover an adequate addressing of it in Catholic dogma, which in my understanding tends to at least dismiss the experiential actuality of what happened to us, if not worse. Yet there is a system of accounting, if it can be even remotley described by that phrese, that has answered my questions through and through, even accounting for the stance of the Church. It is not something that by any means I would recommend to everyone, in fact I don’t. I personally had to go there out of the necessity of sanity. Most aren’t faced with that, though what is in question is a basic, though clouded an ignored, aspect of the human mode of awareness.

 

[JDaniel]

Rookie, though iI might use slightly different terminology due to my way of experience, I find myself very much agreeing with you. Surprisingly, to me, especially about St Theresa.

I am obviously not one of the “venerable posters,” lol as I barely made it through community college. But I did have a Mentor who was a voracious BE-er, who read and owned mountains of books, was accomplished to a very high degree in many areas, and was visited by people whom you would recognize from the international news for advice. I guess he rubbed off on me, and that is a great point of gratitude in my life.

I clearly understand about not believing other’s “experiences.” That is a tricky area at best. I have no doubt, though, that you have had such. Probably those are far more common than acknowledged, but passed over or rejected due to faith, emotion, or intellect. I can only say that the soul Knows, and that the intellect influenced by ignorance knows in a different mode, and that can yet be clouded by emotional turbulence. But as you say, we are dying, each one, and like you, it took a major shock in my high school/college period to send me looking. It behooves us here to help each other in sincerity and humility.

Such a shock as you experienced is commonly known to percipitate a search, but my seemingly rather thorough Catholic school education did not prepare me for mine. When it came, in fact, it and the clergy really offered me no support except to say “believe and it will pass.” That was not sufficient for me, and I am very grateful for the enrichment of my subsequent journey, as it has re-instated a foundational Meaning for understanding the Church. I don’t think that that understanding makes me very welcome in some faith circles, but I earned it through honest inquiry and work. I can only report that it was a journey of great significance and discovery that resulted in an ability to disolve, at least in my own life, many obstacles that would have earlier proved perhaps insurmountable. I am happy to say that what I have learned is yet unfolding in its parcticality.

Very interesting; so, you clearly seem to have “hope”. Hope for what, exactly?

Thanks,
jd

 

[Detales]

Don Juan Matus advised Carlos Castaneda to sense that death was always sitting on his left shoulder as an advisor. Indeed, some systems advocate the percipitation of a consciously aware epiphany called “Awakening,” “Being born Again,” or “Realization,” even “The first death, so the second will have no sting.” Most forms of this are emotional exercises leading only to greater "enmestation, " lol! But there is a catagory of this experience that is actually to be saught after. It’s result is that methods of persuasion relying on argumentation, logic, Bibles, or any such, become irrelevant to the question of religion/no religion, or atheism/theism. Neither of those is, as far as I’m concerned, accurate in cosmological interpretation. Neither is the Darwinism/Creationism/IDism debate.

It is also why I persist in recommending certain books, which in liue of an actual Guide, at least provide an intellectual scaffolding for the consideraton of what has for me proved an exceptionally viable alternative. This alternative doesn’t require the destruciton of any system, while it yet seems so far to account for everything from its particular standpoint. It has, for me, provided a useful cognative line in interpreting my own experience and of systems of understanding. Again, I am very far from recommending it to anyone. As Nisargadatta said, “The search for Reality is the most dangerous one can undertake, as it will destroy your world.” Of course, that refers to the world of personal ignorance, and is similar to taking the red pill. But it is traumatic, or very disturbing at least. It was in my case. But then, I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

Here is another statement from Nisargadatta, who though he was not my Mentor, gained my immense respect:

“I do not accept paths…All paths lead to unreality. Paths are creations within the scope of knowledge, therefore paths and movements cannot transport you into Reality, because their function is to enmesh you within the dimension of knowledge, while Reality prevails prior to it.” - Nisargadatta

 

[JDaniel]

Having taken a number of courses from the Church of Scientology, I know whereof you speak. They are still after me to join, but that is another story, as I seem to have made a particular kind of impression on the people who teased me on exiting one of the courses.

I am a voracious reader of RA Heinlein, who was twice a great friend of LRH. They were “writing buddies.” I have an extensive collection of each.

My impression is that Scientologists believe in God, but not the way that christianists do. I posted a url pertinent to that on the thread called “Do Scientologists Believe in God” It is a point of great frustration for me that this forum seems impenetrable to the idea that there are perceptions and insights about God that are totally alien to the christianist or Abrahamic view. I would think that in a forum such as this, there would be at least an acknowledgment of that dynamic. It would though, in terms of intellectual honesty, be useful to actually account for those other views. All that goes with what I consider to be a predominant either/or mentality on here that is not inclusive of other possibilities that yet include one or both sides of the either/or. (both/and)

Again, I am coming from a position that forced me outside the Church to find a reasonable explanation for a mode of experience that I and many like me have had. We have yet to discover an adequate addressing of it in Catholic dogma, which in my understanding tends to at least dismiss the experiential actuality of what happened to us, if not worse. Yet there is a system of accounting, if it can be even remotely described by that phrase, that has answered my questions through and through, even accounting for the stance of the Church. It is not something that by any means I would recommend to everyone, in fact I don’t. I personally had to go there out of the necessity of sanity. Most aren’t faced with that, though what is in question is a basic, though clouded an ignored, aspect of the human mode of awareness.

Good. I am glad to know this. We will walk through this together.

I think LRH finally did believe in God, but, that the people left behind and in charge, not fully aware of what that might mean to the the church’s survival, have refused to go any further with it. They’ve simply opened the doors to anyone of any faith. Remember, LRH was very remote from the church for years before he died.

His ascribed cosmology, as derived from OT III, was LRH having some fun with his followers as that is when he must have know that there was a God. It was in OT III that he proclaimed his cosmology of the “Evil Xenu”. All of this can be found in many, many places on the internet now, so, even if you are still a Scientologist, you won’t be hurt, if you want to continue going up the bridge.

In consideration of all of this, we have no description of God from LRH. What we have, is a formula for life that can make our lives on the planet easier. We find that he provided some therapies that are superior to those of psychology and psychiatry. We find some “commandments” that, if followed do provide a moral code from secularity, if not hope or a norm of morality. There are aspects of Scientology that I like, and aspects that leave me completely unsatisfied.

This should be great.

jd

 

[Detales]

Though I am not by any means a Scientologist, I heartily agree with you on the aspects you mentoned. I am also very confident that LRH’s complete teaching is not public. Well, it isn’t anyway if you can’t pay for it, lol!

But you seem to be very invested in the idea of “hope.” The symbol of hope is the anchor, for good reason. It can hold still and safe your ship of Soul through a storm. There is a point, I would say though, where hope is replaced fundamentally by knowledge and becomes a secondary feature of engagement with life’s exigencies.

In that regard “Xenu” may at last be a play on words as well as a parable-like veil for the initiate to pass through. It is not important. But it reminds me of Walt Kelly’s malaprop paraphrase of Commander Perry: “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” There have been few statements of greater accuracy in all of philosophy and religion taken together. The trick is to know how that is true.

So, I do have great hope in a sense, but it is not in terms of dealing with a resolution to a personal existential delima. That for me is done and growing in fulfillment. My hope is for evolution in human awreness in general, or at least some clarification on simple points.

 

[JDaniel]

Though I am not by any means a Scientologist, I heartily agree with you on the aspects you mentioned. I am also very confident that LRH’s complete teaching is not public. Well, it isn’t anyway if you can’t pay for it, lol!

But you seem to be very invested in the idea of “hope.” The symbol of hope is the anchor, for good reason. It can hold still and safe your ship of Soul through a storm. There is a point, I would say though, where hope is replaced fundamentally by knowledge and becomes a secondary feature of engagement with life’s exigencies.

In that regard “Xenu” may at last be a play on words as well as a parable-like veil for the initiate to pass through. It is not important. But it reminds me of Walt Kelly’s malaprop paraphrase of Commander Perry: “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” There have been few statements of greater accuracy in all of philosophy and religion taken together. The trick is to know how that is true.

So, I do have great hope in a sense, but it is not in terms of dealing with a resolution to a personal existential dilemma. That for me is done and growing in fulfillment. My hope is for evolution in human awareness in general, or at least some clarification on simple points.

Detales:

All that you have been through, I have already been through and gone past. Yet, I was still dropped off on this not so steadfast ship floundering in rough seas - anchor notwithstanding. That is precisely why I think there must be an object good, that towards which I tend and that which provides me with the hope that, once there, it will not be a deception.

All of my knowledge, and it is fairly considerable, all of my right-thinking, and all of my accomplishments have not prepared me for the ultimacy of death. If death is merely the cessation of my soul, then that is an unforgivable practical joke. But, if I indeed have a soul, then, hopefully, there is a final end that will allow me to endure, not only this lifetime, but also, the afterlife. Hope, for me, is an imperative.

jd

 

[Detales]

I feel for you at this time. I can’t know from your perspective what you might be going through. I have brushed with death to a small degree as far as many of my friends, aquaintances, and relatives have either passed or are on their way. At this age that seems inevitable. I have also been in peril of my life in a number of situations, and have witnessed death. It is not easy. I cannot know what it might be like for you if you sense your own is imminent. I am only offering what I have found through experience works for me.

Primarily, this required on my part a shift in modality. Actually, my whole search was based on a very involuntary shift in modality. The blessing of that was that I had an experienctial referent for certain explanations that are summarily rejected by those who have not had the experience. Even if they accept it, their understanding is theoretical. As they say in Burma, “All knowledge is theoretical until it is in the muscles.” I must agree.

In this regard, I don’t know which position you might be in. I personally do not feel that there is hope in terms of a future object or objective to be gained. I think that that is illusory and prophylactic. I have found that the answer, for me, is in what I AM, not what I hope to experience or where I wish to arrive. This does not in any way mitigate hope. It puts it in an order of proceedural perspective. It is a distinction between “Am now” and “will be.”

In that regard, I will say that there is no doubt in my mind and heart that the soul is immortal. I only think that what most people think of as soul is inadequate to the acuality. I think that for most people it will take the actual release of death in order to percipitate the experiential discovery of the wonder of Soul. At that point faith or lack of it will be irrelevant. It will be the “Knowledge by Identity” I have refered to before. Danion Brinkley mentions it breifly in Struck by the Light. Few, due to lack of experience or depth of perception realize the significance of it.

But in practical terms, that permanence is still theoretical for someone who has not experienced that as a fact of their Being. I remember my Mentor interrupting something he himself was saying. He paused from his topic and said “When you are passing, it is good to remember “I” am *not *.this!” For me, having had the experience I did so many years before, that statement had profound meaning. To someone else, it would mean nothing, or less. One’s opinion in the matter is irrelavent. “IS” IS. I knew that even as a result of considerations when I was a child. It freed me from needing to rely on my own cogitations as a measure of Reality. It freed me from a need for faith or any such thing. I was free simply to percieve. That state was a window on my soul that I try to keep clean to this day. Only thing is, it keeps getting bigger! LOL!

 

[grannymh]

All of my knowledge, and it is fairly considerable, all of my right-thinking, and all of my accomplishments have not prepared me for the ultimacy of death. If death is merely the cessation of my soul, then that is an unforgivable practical joke. But, if I indeed have a soul, then, hopefully, there is a final end that will allow me to endure, not only this lifetime, but also, the afterlife. Hope, for me, is an imperative.
jd

Dear JDaniel,

This is not meant as an interruption in your conversation. But sometimes, the only way to argue for a point is to share one’s own experience.

In a different way, I have experienced my own knowledge facing the ultimacy of death. As I Catholic, I believe in life after death, but that is not always the same as knowing it in the depths of one’s being.

When my Mother was dying in the hospital of cancer, I was taking turns with my Dad so that she would have a family member with her 24/7. We were hoping that my younger brother would arrive from California in time to be with her. That night, things changed. Mother was giving up so I would talk with her, telling her that Bill, whom she dearly loved, was on his way. My Mother could not respond but she hung on. In the morning, Bill arrived. I left. Mother died in peace.

Because I was not there, when Mother died, it was as if she completely ceased to exist and I would never know what happened. Church teachings were not consoling, I had to know for myself what happened when she died. Right before the visitation (wake as it was called in those days) I stood looking at Mother in her casket, missing her something terrible.

I don’t want this to sound like sentimental hogwash. It was more like some mathematical principle finally sunk in and I understood it from end to end. I didn’t have to say good-by. What was essentially my Mother was still living. I experienced it. I could now fully believe with my brain and my being that the soul existed after death.

Blessings,
granny

All life is sacred.

 

[rookieonedge]

 

[rookieonedge]

hey! whats that sposed to mean?

lol! It just means that I’m not up to “warpspeed” to keep up with the terrific discussion. Keep it going!

 

[rookieonedge]

Thanks, Rookie. Good post. But I am being serious - I’m not jesting. I am on this forum for the primary purpose of finding that supreme argument, or, reality, if you will, that will derail my loose affinity with and for religion. If I can’t find it, I will pretty safely conclude that there is none.

In the mean time, I am, so far, quite convinced by the cosmological and ontological arguments. But, obviously, there is always that lingering feeling that it is impossible to be sure of anything. We see water up ahead and it is only a mirage. A friend of mine told me to go and make love (to my wife), then, come back and tell him that illusion is all that there is. It worked, at the time, but, all of that has since faded into the realm of rumor. She passed on a few years ago from cancer.

Obviously, for me, the end-time might be of greater importance than for almost everyone else on this forum. For most, the exigency of “death” is extraordinarily remote. For me, it has brought itself much closer.

Again, much thanks,
jd

Dear jd,

First I wish to sympathize with you concerning the passing of your wife from cancer. It is a dreadful disease, which I hope will someday be eradicated. Perhaps, this terrible experience of suffering may have led you to a certain disillusionment with existence. From your earlier posts, you seemed well-grounded in faith if I read correctly. I’m not trying to psychoanalyze your sentiments; I’m just trying to encourage you in your seeking.

As you posted earlier, you are trying to find “that supreme argument, or, reality. . . that will derail my loose affinity with and for religion.” I wish I could give profound arguments, but you are most likely well-versed in more apologetics and theology than I could ever be. We seek that treasure in the field, “the pearl of great price.” The trouble is, in order to find it, we may have to give up everything, including our pre-set theories of ourselves and everything around us. When I “encountered God,” it was with a humble spirit acquired through a period of suffering. Suffering smooths the surface and digs deeply into the soul. But that is not the only way to find God. As you mentioned, L. Ron Hubbard “knew that there were some things there that transcended MEST” just by being mesmerized by the gaze of love.

You said, “If I can’t find it [supreme argument or reality], I will pretty safely conclude that there is none.” Just to encourage (I certainly don’t mean to be pedantic), please never conclude that there is no hope, because that is what you would be doing. Hope in God, and He will give you hope.

With a prayer,
Rookie

 

[grannymh]

grannymh;4918132:

Dear Grannymh,

I’m sorry this post is so belated, but I’ve been out of touch for awhile.

I’m also assuming that you’ve already found the sources concerning St. Teresa of Avila, but just in case, I’ll inform you anyhow. A while back I read St. Teresa’s autobiography as well as her study of the spiritual life in a book called “The Interior Castle.” It made a great impression on me at the time, and I still regard her work as one of the signposts in my life leading me to what can be called “the holy” or “the Divine.” It’s something science cannot prove exists (although theorists try) because it is out of the realm of the scientific, more like the metaphysical but yet beyond.

P.S. Keep counting those angels!
Rookie

Dear rookieonedge,

Since it is Lent, I must confess that I didn’t even look for sources. So your reply is timely.
As soon as you said “The Interior Castle” I remembered a book about St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross which I read years ago. It is by Thomas Dubay, S.M. called Fire Within
ISBN: 0-89870-263-1 Father Dubay includes a lot of quotes. It was inspiring. Just looked at the copy right date of 1989. Time to reread it.

Also, inspiring to me is your post 137 on this thread. Giving up our pre-set theories of ourselves is very hard to do.

P.S. – regarding counting those angels. That is a lot better than the alternative.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[rookieonedge]

Having taken a number of courses from the Church of Scientology, I know whereof you speak. They are still after me to join, but that is another story, as I seem to have made a particular kind of impression on the people who tesed me on exiting one of the courses.

I am a voracious reader of RA Heinlein, who was twice a great freind of LRH. They were “writing buddies.” I have an extensive collection of each.

My impression is that Scientologists believe in God, but not the way that christianists do. I posted a url pertinent to that on the thread called “Do Scientologists Believe in God” It is a point of great frustration for me that this forum seems impenatrable to the idea that there are perceptions and insights about God that are totally alien to the christianist or Abrahamic view. I would think that in a forum such as this, there would be at least an acknowledgement of that dynamic. It would though, in terms of intellectual honesty, be useful to actualy account for those other views. All that goes with what I consider to be a predominent either/or mentality on here that is not inclusive of other possibilities that yet include one or both sides of the either/or. (both/and)

Again, I am coming from a position that forced me outside the Church to find a reasonable explanation for a mode of experience that I and many like me have had. We have yet to discover an adequate addressing of it in Catholic dogma, which in my understanding tends to at least dismiss the experiential actuality of what happened to us, if not worse. Yet there is a system of accounting, if it can be even remotley described by that phrese, that has answered my questions through and through, even accounting for the stance of the Church. It is not something that by any means I would recommend to everyone, in fact I don’t. I personally had to go there out of the necessity of sanity. Most aren’t faced with that, though what is in question is a basic, though clouded an ignored, aspect of the human mode of awareness.

A very interesting post. I take it you’re into Scientology because it stays away from a simple black/white solution to situations, whereas you seem to think that Catholics emphasize rightness and wrongness of certain acts outside of prevailing internal motives and external environmental situations (that is, if I understand you correctly). On the contrary, although the Church argues for absolutes, this doesn’t mean that a person’s circumstances may not mitigate sinful/bad/wrong actions. For the same transgression, one person’s culpability may vary in terms of another’s culpability. So, IME, God, Himself, sees our hearts and judges accordingly whether one is a Scientologist or a Christian. Maybe the explanation Scientologists present seems more reasonable to you, but I don’t why because I don’t know about that philosohical/religious stance.

The discussion about the GR+ and Gr- was intriguing. In one post, someone said, “The GR+ assumes you know what is best for the other person, and commands you to act accordingly, even if the other person does not aask for it.” The example of the Boy Scouts was classic. I just think, IMHO, that too much is being read into the GR+. Maybe the rule should say: Do unto others in humility as you surmise you would have them do unto you. But always ask first. Whatever!

Just a couple points: In post #95, you wrote “Good/bad is an intellectual fragmentation and predominantly a left brain perception, and does not include right brain wholeness.” Perhaps this is how God wired us to be. He gives us science to learn about ourselves and the world around us. My question for you and anybody else reading this is: what about people with severe dementia or Alzheimer’s disease? Can they truly make a moral choice?

 

[rookieonedge]

rookieonedge;4933936:

Dear rookieonedge,

Since it is Lent, I must confess that I didn’t even look for sources. So your reply is timely.
As soon as you said “The Interior Castle” I remembered a book about St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross which I read years ago. It is by Thomas Dubay, S.M. called Fire Within

ISBN: 0-89870-263-1 Father Dubay includes a lot of quotes. It was inspiring. Just looked at the copy right date of 1989. Time to reread it.

Also, inspiring to me is your post 137 on this thread. Giving up our pre-set theories of ourselves is very hard to do.

P.S. – regarding counting those angels. That is a lot better than the alternative.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

Hi granny,

With more time, I’d like to get into some of the spiritual reading I’ve come across. Maybe that should be on another thread. I think I’ve already re-directed this one from its original topic – How to argue. In any case, I was enthralled with St. John of the Cross and his book “The Dark Night of the Soul.” I don’t think I ever completely understood it. I still wonder if he was experiencing something on such a high spiritual plane – the dryness of his prayers – or was it the exisential angst? Did it truly come from God? Or was it related to psychological implications like depression since he was imprisoned for quite some time? I know I’d be pretty depressed, but he’s a saint, and having read other spiritual authors, it seems to point to an act of God.

No devils on my sewing needles!

Agreed: “All human life is sacred.”

God bless,
rookie