It's All Just Straw?

[Mijoy2]

Genesis and Antroji, I am always facinated by those who state they have “not a flicker of doubt”. When the words come from intelligent and articulate people such as yourselves I fall into a state of wonder.

I’m plagued with doubt. It’s my biggest enemy. Both of you attribute your zero doubt to a mystical experience (if I read your post correctly), which, to me, gives you more credibility. (I hope neither of you find this insulting in any way, it is certainly not the intention). Individuals who express zero doubt without some kind of mystical experinece I find less credible. Less credible because if nothing else, the articulate atheist can appear to have a good argument (I feel). However so can the articulate Catholic. Hence my doubt.

I also stuggle with those who claim a mystical experience in the form of a healing or something which we can logically attribute to the bell curve. In other words there are 6 billion of us in the world, there are going to be many many things that happen that are without natural explaination such as cancers that disappear, or of sight or hearing that is restored, well beyond the abilities of our present day medical community to explain.

I hope it is not viewed (by our Lord) as wrong, but I hope for such an insight, because I know there is no other way my doubt can ever be extinguished.

Don’t misunderstand, I perservere in my doubt, but only for the same reason as Saint Peter.

“Lord where else would we go”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I believe St Thomas had what’s referred to as a “mystical experience”, simply a direct experience of God in some manner, which is always a gift of grace. This resulted in him seeing that every way in which we seek to describe God is hugely flawed and inadequate. But the Church recognizes that mans attempts at doing so are fruitful and worthy of pursuing and that St Thomas’ statement, while understandable, doesn’t mean we should scrap the effort or that nothing of his work is of benefit.

Or, it could just be that Thomas experienced aspects of God that are far greater than what his philosophy could grasp. Does that mean his philosophy is in error? No.

 

[antroji]

Mijoy2,

I can only speak fro myself and my own experience. I extrapolate, since the words and Ideas I use to describe my change came naturally to me and coincide to a high degree with experiences reported and labeled as “spiritual” or “mystical,” that my experience fits this category. I have had two varieties of experience; one that resulted from devotional contemplation and yielded a feeling of Unity and connectivity accompanied by a physical manifestation and change in appearance, and another that simply informed me of another mode of awareness in which there is no time, space, ego, nor any subject/object association, only Being. Of these two the latter was the more significant for reasons I cannot completely articulate. But that one “rocked my world” and I was never the same again. I have since been able to articulate more of a description of the significance and consequences of that state, but it took me years to stabilize in the day-to-day world after that one. It was, as well, exceptionally difficult to dialog about this event, even with clergy.

As for “doubt,” why would anyone not have that? I will say that I was, before that last episode, convinced of my faith. Now I can say that your considerations are reasonable and justifies simply on grounds of natural God given interest. In any final assessment there cannot be any blame ascribed to you, or anyone for that. But if there is any sort of judgment for whatever anyone does, I would hazard to say that the two questions Danion Brinkley articulated (I’m pretty sure it was he) are overarching of any religious or not consideration. They are simply “Did I Love?” and “What did I learn?”

Please notice that those are asked in the first person singular, and as he said, asked with utter impartiality. And if I had anything of significance to say about our Faith as we commonly understand it, is that we vastly underestimate the utter indifference to blame in the moment of judgment. It is a matter far more of understanding that action has consequence and how that is so and why than of ascribing blame of intent. To put it simply, if I can, whatever we might think our religious affiliation or lack of such might be, the actual matter of concern is each one’s growth in understanding and practicing Life as an interconnected web so fine that all of it is effected by any action, which action does return as consequence to the actor. A fascinating aspect of that is that intellect, beliefs, and even immature faith can distort the perception of how that all works. And yet all those can be aids as well. Go figure.

But the point is that the discovery of your own wonderful being is what is at stake, and that the Golden Rule in both its forms really is the fundamental Law. You might as well regard the “other” as yourself. You will find out why. Jesus words about “Love thy neighbor as thyself” are founded in something far more profound than those less than He commonly purport. That is all that I will say on that, save that you may notice that differences, scholarship, dogmatism, all of that, even wars, jihads, and crusades, are about form, not Substance. If they appear not to be and there is yet contention, it is still about form. But we are here, in a sense, to experience contrast as a tool to self discovery.

I will also say that it matters not a whit if you have a “spiritual experience” or not. You are in the Arms of Love even at your alleged worst. And while it is true that you can blind yourself to Glory, if you simply are open to wonder, even if in great pain or as the object of wrongdoing, there is nothing that can touch your essence. It is not over until you SEE! And then you will understand the story of the prodigal in a new light.

Again, this is given with the caveat that it is relative to my own experience, and that it has proved practical and durable over these many years. I hope that it is of some use to you.

 

[Mijoy2]

Mijoy2,

I can only speak fro myself and my own experience. I extrapolate, since the words and Ideas I use to describe my change came naturally to me and coincide to a high degree with experiences reported and labeled as “spiritual” or “mystical,” that my experience fits this category. I have had two varieties of experience; one that resulted from devotional contemplation and yielded a feeling of Unity and connectivity accompanied by a physical manifestation and change in appearance, and another that simply informed me of another mode of awareness in which there is no time, space, ego, nor any subject/object association, only Being. Of these two the latter was the more significant for reasons I cannot completely articulate. But that one “rocked my world” and I was never the same again. I have since been able to articulate more of a description of the significance and consequences of that state, but it took me years to stabilize in the day-to-day world after that one. It was, as well, exceptionally difficult to dialog about this event, even with clergy.

As for “doubt,” why would anyone not have that? I will say that I was, before that last episode, convinced of my faith. Now I can say that your considerations are reasonable and justifies simply on grounds of natural God given interest. In any final assessment there cannot be any blame ascribed to you, or anyone for that. But if there is any sort of judgment for whatever anyone does, I would hazard to say that the two questions Danion Brinkley articulated (I’m pretty sure it was he) are overarching of any religious or not consideration. They are simply “Did I Love?” and “What did I learn?”

Please notice that those are asked in the first person singular, and as he said, asked with utter impartiality. And if I had anything of significance to say about our Faith as we commonly understand it, is that we vastly underestimate the utter indifference to blame in the moment of judgment. It is a matter far more of understanding that action has consequence and how that is so and why than of ascribing blame of intent. To put it simply, if I can, whatever we might think our religious affiliation or lack of such might be, the actual matter of concern is each one’s growth in understanding and practicing Life as an interconnected web so fine that all of it is effected by any action, which action does return as consequence to the actor. A fascinating aspect of that is that intellect, beliefs, and even immature faith can distort the perception of how that all works. And yet all those can be aids as well. Go figure.

But the point is that the discovery of your own wonderful being is what is at stake, and that the Golden Rule in both its forms really is the fundamental Law. You might as well regard the “other” as yourself. You will find out why. Jesus words about “Love thy neighbor as thyself” are founded in something far more profound than those less than He commonly purport. That is all that I will say on that, save that you may notice that differences, scholarship, dogmatism, all of that, even wars, jihads, and crusades, are about form, not Substance. If they appear not to be and there is yet contention, it is still about form. But we are here, in a sense, to experience contrast as a tool to self discovery.

I will also say that it matters not a whit if you have a “spiritual experience” or not. You are in the Arms of Love even at your alleged worst. And while it is true that you can blind yourself to Glory, if you simply are open to wonder, even if in great pain or as the object of wrongdoing, there is nothing that can touch your essence. It is not over until you SEE! And then you will understand the story of the prodigal in a new light.

Again, this is given with the caveat that it is relative to my own experience, and that it has proved practical and durable over these many years. I hope that it is of some use to you.

Thank you and God bless you.

 

[Genesius]

I, in no way meant to imply that St. Thomas’ sentiment, “It’s all just straw” means that we should just put everything by the wayside. I believe it was Socrates who said in essence (and I know I’m paraphrasing) that the satisfaction does not come by discovering the answers to the questions, but rather is in the quest or journey in discovering the answers, whether we ever attain the answers or not. Pagan as he was, I believe his basic philosophy of philosophy is very beneficial and appropriate to our Christian faith as well.

But I digress. We are not discussing Socrates but St. Thomas OF Aquinas (my pet peeve…I hate it when people refer to him as though his last name was ‘Aquinas’…however, I do recognize that the Church accepts this rendering as well). I know, I chase wabbits.

Bottom line…it’s all just straw…LOL! :twocents: