My atheist friend has stumped me

[kbf1970060]

In what name(s), or whose name, are you doing such things – who is / was your mentor – what have you done, or are you doing, in Jesus’ name?

Are you going beyond your Ego in Jesus’ name?

Do you think, that you have been to, seen, where it is the saints reside?

You claimed “The Dark Night of The Soul” by St. John of The Cross, as a matter of opinion, to be ignorant. The Dark Night of The Soul, exists as the movement of ones soul, toward its beloved, The Godhead, and thus this movement furthers ones soul away from the world, and toward God, to be with God.

To follow your line of reasoning, that as a creation in the image, the likeness of God, there exists, fundamentally, some essence, that is God – this defies God – God is infinite. We are creations of God, therefore, we did begin as creations at some point, in time. The only person to be both infinite, and immortal, such a person is Jesus.

What sin is permitted in Heaven, with the angels and saints, and The Godhead? None, as I understand it. Where then shall my soul go in the image, the likeness, of God, while burdened without forgiveness, by sin(s)? To confession, yes, to Heaven? No.

What lesser, or greater, understanding of ourselves may we gain: to understand, that we are made in the image, the likeness, of God, that we may retain for ourselves, or share with others? The word “catholic” usefully has described the universal nature of The Catholic Church, The Roman Rite, that God is known through The Messiah, Jesus, by any person, across any time. What possible limit is there to what we may share of our Messiah? We are perhaps not even worthy to be the dust beneath his feat, but would he loosen the sandals from our feet?

There is no impersonal characteristic to my soul, image and likeness of God, because it is not God to any extent, but of God. To God it should be rendered, because it belongs to God; otherwise, as a course of my own will, I shall commit a great theft, and steal this soul of God, myself, to Hell. I will, as God wills, intelligently, as God is intelligent, in submission as an immortal, beneath The Infinite Godhead, to receive the sacraments of The Catholic Church, The Roman Rite, that this soul of God’s, may return to God. You are welcome to return to Ceasar, what is Ceasar’s. Ceasar is more than happy to receive his currency in taxes.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
If we are made in the image and likeness of God, is it better to try to see ourselves or to see God? You know, God showed himself as Jesus Christ for exactly this purpose. It seems you are abandonning that view.

I will admit my view is limited. I can’t see things behind me without turning around. Such is the lot of the human. But that really isn’t the point here, is it. The question at hand involves what you think YOU see. You seem to believe that you have moved BEYOND the Church instituted by Christ to administer the sacraments and teach the truths about salvation. Many, many people have thought that. They are all wrong. Not every revelation is divinely inspired. Satan is indeed walking the earth seeking the ruin of souls.
Do you really think God is telling you that the Church can’t answer your questions?

Quote:
You are being as presumptuous as those you are addressing. How do you know that they haven’t got more spiritual insight than you do?

Exactly. As for as YOU can see.

Quote:
How do you know your path is the right one?

How does it work if its taking you away from he sacraments and the Church?

Quote:
Particularly when the path you are abandonning is so much better attested than the one you plotting out on your own.

You are describing a situation where you have abandonned the church for your own way. In what universe are you more inspired or more intelligent that the combined resources of the Catholic Church?

Quote:
Yes, think of what the saints did. They stayed true to the Catholic Church. Why do you think you know better than they do?

Anyone who is in heaven got there by following the truths taught by the Catholic church, whether they called themselves Catholic or not. There are not competing Truths. There is only one way that is completely true.

 

[Miriam1947]

Whadyamean, is this what you are referring to?

arunachala-ramana.org/newcomer_to_advaita.htm

. . . Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi appeared on earth to open the otherwise closed Truth to all seekers - to revitalise and regenerate the path of ‘Self-enquiry’ (vichara), the very core of Advaitic Philosophy. His advent is no small occurrence in the history of humanity; Bhagavan Ramana was no ordinary guru, in fact He was not a teacher as such is understood, but was the ‘Living Embodiment’ of the Highest Truth. His entire life, every action, every word and every silence was pregnant with profound meaning; a glance from His lustrous eyes or a short time in His silent presence stilled the raging mind and gently thrust the aspiring devotee into the bliss of the highest state - many are those who have testified to such and even more who have simply remained silent. To His humble abode came royalty, philosophers, teachers, politicians, judges, spiritual leaders, writers (including Somerset Maugham), every kind of seeker and simple folk; there were also other Jnanis and Saints who came to pay homage to this unassuming Sage - someone asked these latter what the relationship (if any) was between Bhagavan Ramana and they - the answer came “He is the Sun and we are the rays” - this response is perhaps the most illuminating glimpse we can have of the True Glory of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.

To read of His life and that of those who stayed with Him, is to truly understand the meaning of Grace, to fully comprehend the brotherhood of all life, to begin to destroy that which for aeons has brought us misery in our lives - to walk the path to absolute freedom and unending bliss. This is the destiny of those who walk the path of vichara with determination and faith.

 

[Whadyamean]

There are any number of devotional and spiritual exercises that the Catholic Church has at its disposal to help people come to a fuller communion with God, whether they be the teachings of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius Loyola, Francis of Assissi, Francis deSales, or any other of the spiritual masters. But keep in mind that all of them began with the sacraments that provide God’s grace. If you distance yourself from the church, you distance yourself from Christ, who is the head of the Church, which is both his bride and his body. Also, you should be asking yourself why you have been given this special revelation that brings you outside the Church and who might have been the source of that revelation.

Thank you, Paul! In fact, that is where I started. My Catholic practice was devotional well above average by most standards. I love the teachings and indeed poetry of (some) of these! Interestingly, my Mentor, who loved and often spoke of his beloved Francis, was recognized (not personally, but as being someone of extraordinary perception and spirit) and taken hand-in-hand by a keeper of the Assisi shrine thoroughly through all the places tourists are not allowed. He also encouraged me to attend Church, as he did us all, whatever our religion. For a number of reasons, I chose not to. Those reasons are between myself and God and I have no guilt, remorse or regret about them. My only regret, except that it led me on an extraordinary adventure, was that there was no aspect of my encounter with the Church at the time of my experience that was of practical use.

I assure you that I am no more distant from the Christ than any in the Church. But thank you for your sincere concern. And again, I have asked these questions as part of my practice. And let us remember that there was a time and may be one in the future where the institution of the Church wasn’t or won’t be. Yet God said “Before Abraham I AM.” So perhaps what you think constitutes “in” or “out” might be adjusted? Though I do not partake in the institutional practices of the Church, I do not feel outside what actually constitutes its Foundation. How could anyone be? The institutional Church is,… well, maybe you will see for yourself and we can have a good talk about it. But you seem to have a very good and stable handle on things, which is admirable, right, and good. Blessings on you! And thank you again for your graceful good intentions. They are far more palatable, charitable, and useful than being preached at and called names.

John 16:12 “There is much that I wish to tell you, but you can not bear it yet”

 

[Whadyamean]

Why would anyone say, “Thank God” when atrocities happen? One would say, “Please help me/us God to endure this and be with us to get through it” Then when we are through it we say, “Thank you God for your help. Thank you God for sending so many good people to help us,” etc. etc, etc.

I am saying nothing is going to be perfect, not in this life. I don’t know why some need to blame God when bad things happen. God does not want bad things to happen to us and He will be there to help us when they do happen.

Natural disasters happen in this world. Some people are in the way of natural tragedies, that is just a fact of how our earth works. Some atrocities occur when leaders are evil and innocent people are caught in their evil plans. That is not God’s plan.

I guess you don’t know anyone who after going through a bad time say, “I sure am glad I came out of that but I am thankful I went through it since I learned so much or I met so many wonderful people I would not have known if it didn’t happen.”

Maybe some only look at the bad side of life and not the good that comes from bad.

I cannot fault anyone for doing as you say, OneofMany, being thankful to God in that way. That is well and good. My emphasis is on a kind of critical thinking that comes to a somewhat different conclusion about the understanding of God as personal in the sense that that is usually understood. God will appear personal as long as we think of ourselves only as persons. It is just that there may be a more complete and fulfilling understanding about such ideas,

 

[Whadyamean]

Whad

A very large part of the dark night of the soul, as I found out, is ignorance. It is, in fact, why I am no longer a practicing Catholic, though I am still associated with the Church in a roundabout way. My discovery was, after a period of agonizing and research through clerics and books, that there are explanations, guidance, paradigms and short cuts the Church neither uses nor acknowledges. Something has been lost, I would say, between Jesus and the present day. It caused me great grief and sadness that I found this to be the case. Had the Church some of these protocols in place, I would have not only stayed, but would have been saved years of disturbance and searching. As it is, I feel like I have won the lottery. And I feel great pain because the Church appears to be intransigent in this matter.

You have put your own wisdom above the wisdom of the Church founded by Christ.

Is this really the smart move?

I make no such claim as you attribute to me, and whether it was smart or not by your beliefs, it was necessary for me. I speak only of my own experience. I do not and cannot recommend that others do something similar, I am simply answering your questions according to what I see, and you are upset because I see differently than you do, but by the same Light. Is that a threat to you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

My atheist posed this question to me the other day: “If God is so loving, fair, and powerful, why does He allow innocent children and babies to suffer from disease?”

I would have been able to answer the question if he asked why evil exists (free will, sin, etc.) but I myself began to have doubts with this one. Babies and children are innocent, and did not do anything to deserve painful and terminal diseases.

How would I give him an answer that he, an atheist, could understand?

Thanks,

Jake

While they have not committed personal sins, they are not innocent. They have inherited the original sin of Adam, and they are separated from God.

 

[Whadyamean]

Whadyamean, is this what you are referring to?

arunachala-ramana.org/newcomer_to_advaita.htm

No. That is a collection of words and images that are the result of some devotee’s experience of Sri Ramana. My Mentor did introduced me to Ramana’s words, amongst others as recorded on paper. As such, they will mean to you what you bring to it. They are not in themselves Truth, but only black dots on paper or dancing electrons on your screen, Whatever we read, see, or experience is a mirror. Ramana only encouraged his listeners to inquire about who it was that was looking.

 

[Luvtosew]

While they have not committed personal sins, they are not innocent. They have inherited the original sin of Adam, and they are separated from God.

Well that doesn’t really cut it as not all babies get a disease or are born with a condition.

This is one of the atheists biggest come back of why they don’t believe, and I think the best answer is “I don’t know, no one really does” apart from some of it is genetic.

 

[Tenofovir]

While they have not committed personal sins, they are not innocent. They have inherited the original sin of Adam, and they are separated from God.

Well that doesn’t really cut it as not all babies get a disease or are born with a condition.

This is one of the atheists biggest come back of why they don’t believe, and I think the best answer is “I don’t know, no one really does” apart from some of it is genetic.

In order for us to have a degree of freedom and independence, God permits certain things in this world. The point to remember however is that this world is not all there is, a baby which dies in utero or several years down the line does not stop existing but achieves the Beatific Vision in Heaven with God. That experience is so radically different that suffering on earth pales in comparison.

Under atheism we cannot even decry suffering because we’re all DNA replicators, except those of us who are faulty DNA replicators. We think we matter but we don’t and we’re not special. If that is so, it does not matter if a baby dies or a Hitler dies and suffers because like the gazelle and octopus, we’re all just DNA replicating machines of no relevance and importance beyond an illusory importance to ourselves. If atheism is true, that is true. An atheist can feel pity for a child which dies of painful bone cancer but that pity is just an illusory feeling which emerged out of the process of evolution. It had survival advantage but is not intrinsically meaningful.

 

[Whadyamean]

In what name(s), or whose name, are you doing such things – who is / was your mentor – what have you done, or are you doing, in Jesus’ name?

What did people do in Jesus’ Name before Jesus was know to the few that know of Him? What did you do in His name before you knew of Him?

Are you going beyond your Ego in Jesus’ name?

If I am “going beyond (my) ego,” who cares, as long as it gets done?

Do you think, that you have been to, seen, where it is the saints reside?

Show me where they reside, and you will know.

You claimed “The Dark Night of The Soul” by St. John of The Cross, as a matter of opinion, to be ignorant. The Dark Night of The Soul, exists as the movement of ones soul, toward its beloved, The Godhead, and thus this movement furthers ones soul away from the world, and toward God, to be with God.

That is a good “book” definition. And while it can be seen as a “plateau” on the “way” it yet has an element of ignorance. That ignorance is the burning fire that can drive one to persistence and penetration.

To follow your line of reasoning, that as a creation in the image, the likeness of God, there exists, fundamentally, some essence, that is God – this defies God – God is infinite. We are creations of God, therefore, we did begin as creations at some point, in time. The only person to be both infinite, and immortal, such a person is Jesus.

That will serve you for now.

What sin is permitted in Heaven, with the angels and saints, and The Godhead? None, as I understand it. Where then shall my soul go in the image, the likeness, of God, while burdened without forgiveness, by sin(s)? To confession, yes, to Heaven? No.

Have no clue what you are trying to say here.

What lesser, or greater, understanding of ourselves may we gain: to understand, that we are made in the image, the likeness, of God, that we may retain for ourselves, or share with others? The word “catholic” usefully has described the universal nature of The Catholic Church, The Roman Rite, that God is known through The Messiah, Jesus, by any person, across any time. What possible limit is there to what we may share of our Messiah? We are perhaps not even worthy to be the dust beneath his feat, but would he loosen the sandals from our feet?

When the sandal straps are loosened, one can step out of the insulating factor of personality and the feet, the symbol of Understanding, can come in direct contact with the Ground which is not sand. Or the grit in your sandals. .

There is no impersonal characteristic to my soul, image and likeness of God, because it is not God to any extent, but of God.

Clumsily stated, but yes, I agree: Atman is Brahman. But PLEASE don’t go calling me a Buddhist. I am not.

To God it should be rendered, because it belongs to God; otherwise, as a course of my own will, I shall commit a great theft, and steal this soul of God, myself, to Hell. I will, as God wills, intelligently, as God is intelligent, in submission as an immortal, beneath The Infinite Godhead, to receive the sacraments of The Catholic Church, The Roman Rite, that this soul of God’s, may return to God. You are welcome to return to Ceasar, what is Ceasar’s. Ceasar is more than happy to receive his currency in taxes.

Not too happy with Caesar right now. As for the Roman Rite, that is obviously an excellent vehicle for you! No problem there. But how do you generalize that over those who have never heard of it or don’t have the tools to understand what you mean by it?

By this: “1300–1350; Middle English < Latin catholicus < Greek katholikós general, equivalent to kathól ( ou ) universally (contraction of phrase katà hólou according to the whole;” I am quite catholic, as well as by the religious definition. (It only originated as a word in 1300? Didn’t know that. That’s not even half way back, is it?)

 

[Luvtosew]

In order for us to have a degree of freedom and independence, God permits certain things in this world. The point to remember however is that this world is not all there is, a baby which dies in utero or several years down the line does not stop existing but achieves the Beatific Vision in Heaven with God. That experience is so radically different that suffering on earth pales in comparison.

Under atheism we cannot even decry suffering because we’re all DNA replicators, except those of us who are faulty DNA replicators. We think we matter but we don’t and we’re not special. If that is so, it does not matter if a baby dies or a Hitler dies and suffers because like the gazelle and octopus, we’re all just DNA replicating machines of no relevance and importance beyond an illusory importance to ourselves. If atheism is true, that is true. An atheist can feel pity for a child which dies of painful bone cancer but that pity is just an illusory feeling which emerged out of the process of evolution. It had survival advantage but is not intrinsically meaningful.

Your right with us the babies live on with God and we have that comfort, but with Atheists they sit in the ground and rot I guess.

 

[paul_c]

Thank you, Paul! In fact, that is where I started. My Catholic practice was devotional well above average by most standards. I love the teachings and indeed poetry of (some) of these! Interestingly, my Mentor, who loved and often spoke of his beloved Francis, was recognized (not personally, but as being someone of extraordinary perception and spirit) and taken hand-in-hand by a keeper of the Assisi shrine thoroughly through all the places tourists are not allowed. He also encouraged me to attend Church, as he did us all, whatever our religion. For a number of reasons, I chose not to. Those reasons are between myself and God and I have no guilt, remorse or regret about them. My only regret, except that it led me on an extraordinary adventure, was that there was no aspect of my encounter with the Church at the time of my experience that was of practical use.

Frankly, you are thinking of the mass wrong. Its not about entertainment or to be of use to you. Primarily, its about loving God and coming in communion with him through the blessed Sacrament. I dare say that your understanding of devotion is faulty if you don’t understand that the mass is the most intimate devotion of all. How can you say that your devotion was well above average, if you aren’t devoted to Christ in the eucharist? You are very severely decieved.

I assure you that I am no more distant from the Christ than any in the Church. But thank you for your sincere concern. And again, I have asked these questions as part of my practice. And let us remember that there was a time and may be one in the future where the institution of the Church wasn’t or won’t be. Yet God said “Before Abraham I AM.” So perhaps what you think constitutes “in” or “out” might be adjusted? Though I do not partake in the institutional practices of the Church, I do not feel outside what actually constitutes its Foundation. How could anyone be? The institutional Church is,… well, maybe you will see for yourself and we can have a good talk about it. But you seem to have a very good and stable handle on things, which is admirable, right, and good. Blessings on you! And thank you again for your graceful good intentions. They are far more palatable, charitable, and useful than being preached at and called names.

How can you say that you are no more distant from the Christ than any in the Church, when you do no partake of Jesus in the eucharist? Through the eucharist, Jesus becomes a part of us… And you are way too dismissive of the Church. The Church was instituted by Christ to administer the grace giving sacraments and to teach about the truth. The Church is fully forthcoming on what it takes to be saved, as it must be, yet you think they aren’t telling you the whole truth and is somehow found lacking. However, despited your claims, you have not been forthcoming on what he church is missing. I suspect that if you were to bring those things to light, they would be rather easy to dismiss but maybe you will surprise us…

John 16:12 “There is much that I wish to tell you, but you can not bear it yet”

.

I take it to mean by this isolated quote that you think that Jesus withheld knowledge from the Apostles and the Church which he has subsequently imparted to you. This is not a credible interpretation. In fact, how do you support it yourself? Why would Jesus withhold critical information from the Apostles and the Church but give it to you personally?

 

[Anthony_V]

Your right with us the babies live on with God and we have that comfort, but with Atheists they sit in the ground and rot I guess.

Consider this excerpt from the CCC:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God,* as she does in her funeral rites for them*. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Note that the inheritance of original sin does not damn someone to hell; personal sin does. So these children are not damned to hell, but rather deprived of beatific vision. In the worst case scenario, they don’t enter Heaven. But even in this scenario, their state of existence is, for the most part, far more suitable than those of us here on earth-- no pain, that is-- despite what they would otherwise gain from these sufferings.

** It seems to me, coupled with your examination of “sit[ting] in the ground and rot[ting]”, that these children would be at better odds than if there was in fact no God. Thus, once again, the mercy of God prevails.**

 

[Anthony_V]

How can you say that you are no more distant from the Christ than any in the Church, when you do no partake of Jesus in the eucharist? Through the eucharist, Jesus becomes a part of us…

Sorry, just a nit-picky item: Jesus does not, in fact, become part of us when we communicate. Rather, we become part of him. This is the miracle of the Eucharist, and what puts it far apart from any sort of cannibalism.

Pax Christi,
Anthony

 

[Tenofovir]

Consider this excerpt from the CCC:

Note that the inheritance of original sin does not damn someone to hell; personal sin does. So these children are not damned to hell, but rather deprived of beatific vision. In the worst case scenario, they don’t enter Heaven. But even in this scenario, their state of existence is, for the most part, far more suitable than those of us here on earth-- no pain, that is-- despite what they would otherwise gain from these sufferings.

** It seems to me, coupled with your examination of “sit[ting] in the ground and rot[ting]”, that these children would be at better odds than if there was in fact no God. Thus, once again, the mercy of God prevails.**

What is the basis for saying God cannot grant Beatific Vision to these children? Is this a logical impossibility such as God cannot make a square circle or is it a case where as Christ says, “with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

It seems to me that the Church is being reserved here in what She says. It however does not mean that unbaptised children through no fault of their own, do not obtain Beatific Vision. Are we 100% sure of this the way we’re sure of the Resurrection of Christ?

 

[buffalo]

Focus on the soul of the baby.

The fall is responsible for the physical corruption.

 

[Luvtosew]

Consider this excerpt from the CCC:

Note that the inheritance of original sin does not damn someone to hell; personal sin does. So these children are not damned to hell, but rather deprived of beatific vision. In the worst case scenario, they don’t enter Heaven. But even in this scenario, their state of existence is, for the most part, far more suitable than those of us here on earth-- no pain, that is-- despite what they would otherwise gain from these sufferings.

** It seems to me, coupled with your examination of “sit[ting] in the ground and rot[ting]”, that these children would be at better odds than if there was in fact no God. Thus, once again, the mercy of God prevails.**

You didn’t read my post right, it about what atheist would think, personally I think they go right in the arms of God, but since an Atheist doesn’t believe in God they must not believe in heaven so I guess for them when anyone dies they just think its the end.

 

[Anthony_V]

You didn’t read my post right, it about what atheist would think, personally I think they go right in the arms of God, but since an Atheist doesn’t believe in God they must not believe in heaven so I guess for them when anyone dies they just think its the end.

My apologies. I thought you were the original poster for some reason
Context, context, context…

 

[Whadyamean]

Frankly, you are thinking of the mass wrong. Its not about entertainment or to be of use to you. Primarily, its about loving God and coming in communion with him through the blessed Sacrament. I dare say that your understanding of devotion is faulty if you don’t understand that the mass is the most intimate devotion of all. How can you say that your devotion was well above average, if you aren’t devoted to Christ in the eucharist? You are very severely decieved.

I’m sorry, but by what agency do you know what I think of the mass? You wrongly put derisive words in my mouth. Why are you doing that?

How can you say that you are no more distant from the Christ than any in the Church, when you do no partake of Jesus in the eucharist? Through the eucharist, Jesus becomes a part of us… And you are way too dismissive of the Church. The Church was instituted by Christ to administer the grace giving sacraments and to teach about the truth. The Church is fully forthcoming on what it takes to be saved, as it must be, yet you think they aren’t telling you the whole truth and is somehow found lacking. However, despited your claims, you have not been forthcoming on what he church is missing. I suspect that if you were to bring those things to light, they would be rather easy to dismiss but maybe you will surprise us.

As you know, I am not dismissive of the Church for you. I do not participate for my own reasons which are my business. I hope you are not in a position where you cannot distinguish one of us from the other?

I take it to mean by this isolated quote that you think that Jesus withheld knowledge from the Apostles and the Church which he has subsequently imparted to you. This is not a credible interpretation. In fact, how do you support it yourself? Why would Jesus withhold critical information from the Apostles and the Church but give it to you personally?

Read the quote; Jesus is recorded as saying it.