H
holy_moly
Guest
Another one I like from Padre Pio,
My past Oh Lord to thy mercy
My present Oh Lord to your Love
My future Oh Lord to thy providence
- Status
My past Oh Lord to thy mercy
My present Oh Lord to your Love
My future Oh Lord to thy providence
H
holy_moly
Guest
Where did I say this was my intention? was actually pretty open ended don’t you think?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Jean8
While waiting for you to respond to my last post to you …
… I thought would comment on this one. It basically has the same type of error, so, you can probably combine your ideas in one item!
The basic error, at least as I see it, is that you have set one set of principles - the principle of love against another set of principles involving fraternal correction. They are not in opposition if used according to scripture
Honest! 
Let’s see how they work out together…
Let me try a simple example: if you had on a new suit and were about to sit down on a bench - that had just been painted … I could choose to leave you alone and respect your privacy (to the possible destruction of your suit), or I could advise you of the wet paint (to the possible cause of your embarrassment). Which would you prefer me to do? My guess is that you would rather risk embarrassment then the destruction of your new suit - and the resulting embarrassment of walking around with pain on your backside. From what I have read, the other posters have tried to keep you from sitting in the equivalent of ‘fresh paint’ - and, they have done this out of love for you.
As I see it, you are not in direct communion with the Chruch of Christ - the Catholic Church. My understanding is tht your salvation is not as clearly spelled out as it is for practicing Catholics. Pointing this out to you is just like pointing out you are about to sit in wet paint. You still have time to do something different - move away from the bench comes to mind… but, the choice is yours.
Let me give you some examples:
Don’t you think that ‘judging’ is what is going on in the following two statements:
**- Luke 3:7-8 "He said to the crowds who came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruits as evidence of your repentance; and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” ** - John the Baptist is judging those who came out with no thought of repenting (Pharisees?) He is telling them that they are in trouble - and - no one should be following their example.
** - Matt 6:1 "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven” . ** - Christ is specifically judging the behavior of the Pharisees, finding it lacking - and warning His Apostles not to follow their example.
The speakers are using strong words - there is no subtle tone, or polite discourse here! The idea is that these individuals are living in defiance of the law of God and are not doing what is right in the sight of God. The speakers are warning them - tough love - that they must change or suffer permanent loss of their souls.
No one was harsh to you - at lest as far as I could see. Cheer up! We still love you… just want you to review what is going on and look at the real meaning of Outside the Chruch there is not salvation.
God bless
While waiting for you to respond to my last post to you …
… I thought would comment on this one. It basically has the same type of error, so, you can probably combine your ideas in one item! The basic error, at least as I see it, is that you have set one set of principles - the principle of love against another set of principles involving fraternal correction. They are not in opposition if used according to scripture
Honest! Let’s see how they work out together…Actually, you are quite correct in what you have said - at least the words are in keeping with the love we are to show to one another. No problem - as far as it goes. What I am picking up, however, is your opposition to being told that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.
Let me try a simple example: if you had on a new suit and were about to sit down on a bench - that had just been painted
… I could choose to leave you alone and respect your privacy (to the possible destruction of your suit), or I could advise you of the wet paint (to the possible cause of your embarrassment). Which would you prefer me to do? My guess is that you would rather risk embarrassment then the destruction of your new suit - and the resulting embarrassment of walking around with pain on your backside. From what I have read, the other posters have tried to keep you from sitting in the equivalent of ‘fresh paint’ - and, they have done this out of love for you.What I believe is that Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18) and gave Peter the authority to bind and lose. The Successor of St. Peter is Pope Benedict XVI. Just where are you in relationship to Christ’s direct activity of establishing His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church)? From what I have seen, you claim to belong to a church founded by a man with another gospel. Now, this presents a challenge if one simply reads the Bible and wonders where all of this division comes from. At no point in Scripture is there a reference to Luther, or Calvin or Henry VIII or any other man re-routing the Chruch founded by Christ. Is there?We are commanded by Jesus to love one another. Jn.13;34 reads “A new command I give you: Love one another , as I have loved you, By this you will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Do you really believe that Jesus died on the cross fo Catholic believers only? Oneness Pentecostals believe the same thing.Please give this some thought.
As I see it, you are not in direct communion with the Chruch of Christ - the Catholic Church. My understanding is tht your salvation is not as clearly spelled out as it is for practicing Catholics. Pointing this out to you is just like pointing out you are about to sit in wet paint. You still have time to do something different - move away from the bench comes to mind… but, the choice is yours.
This is where I think you have received instruction from previous posters - but apparently are rejecting it. I would be curious as to why you reject sound advice
Let me give you some examples:Don’t you think that ‘judging’ is what is going on in the following two statements:
**- Luke 3:7-8 "He said to the crowds who came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce good fruits as evidence of your repentance; and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” ** - John the Baptist is judging those who came out with no thought of repenting (Pharisees?) He is telling them that they are in trouble - and - no one should be following their example.
** - Matt 6:1 "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven” . ** - Christ is specifically judging the behavior of the Pharisees, finding it lacking - and warning His Apostles not to follow their example.
The speakers are using strong words - there is no subtle tone, or polite discourse here! The idea is that these individuals are living in defiance of the law of God and are not doing what is right in the sight of God. The speakers are warning them - tough love - that they must change or suffer permanent loss of their souls.
No one was harsh to you - at lest as far as I could see. Cheer up!
We still love you… just want you to review what is going on and look at the real meaning of Outside the Chruch there is not salvation.God bless
A
anon5216
Guest
True, my apologies.
H
holy_moly
Guest
No problem, but if I were to pray for you to accept my belief system, the operative term wouldn’t be ‘merely’…
S
sparkletina
Guest
Dear Matariel: YAY!!! I also sojourned in Protestantism for 20 years, reverted in 2002 to the One True Church founded by Jesus. I was in theological crisis & looking for answers, wasn’t getting any from my pastors and started looking into things on my own. Friend loaned me *Catholicism vs. Fundamentalism *by Keating and *Rome Sweet Home *by Hahn. Didn’t want to read Hahn’s book because I thought it really weird that a Presbyterian pastor, not having ever been Catholic, would come into the Church. I had a mindset against reading conversion stories, and it seemed so far-fetched and hokey. I eventually read it just to say I did. There were some aha! moments during the reading. Ordered some more books, and more, and more…1 year and 100 books later, I had read my way back into the Church. I am finally truly at peace.
L
Luke65
Guest
Don’t you realize that your argument holds no water since all of this was foretold in the Old Testament? One example:
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
You want to see (more) hubris?!
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.” (Daniel 2:24-45 NIV)
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”” (Matthew 16:17-19)
Myth!
Poor fellow. But God bless you (James quoted the relevant verse).Outpouring of Spirit
Holy Spirit,
we ask for an outpouring of your graces, blessings and gifts,
upon those who do not believe, that they may believe;
Upon those who are doubtful or confused, that they may understand;
Upon those who are lukewarm or indifferent, that they may be transformed;
Upon those who are constantly living in the state of sin, that they may be converted;
Upon those who are weak, that they may be strengthened;
Upon those who are holy, that they may persevere.
Amen.
A
anon5216
Guest
A
anon5216
Guest
Rhetoric has been defined as using language as a means to persuade.
It is you two who are trying to persuade - and get upset when unsuccessful.
I am just discussing things of great interest to me and do not require agreement.
Regarding Padre Pio: his spiritual attainments are not unique to Catholicism - there are plenty of examples from many different spiritual traditions around the world of people equally spiritually gifted.
There is nothing astounding about admiring all these people, although I can see that your very limited religious beliefs tend towards deciding if your membership card is with the winning side in the salvation sweepstakes.
Padre Pio is not a validation of your membership card - he is an example of the standard required to make real spiritual progress within the context of the Catholic tradition.
Others are exemplars of the standard to be reached within the spiritual traditions they developed in.
What is astounding is that so many Catholics see this standard and yet still wallow in the belief that membership and vehement loyalty to belief statements is enough.
Regarding shows, non-responses and cute acronyms, look up Freud’s concept of projection.
Tom,
I wish you all God’s grace in your own spiritual life and pray that your spiritual development accelerates a thousand fold (entirely within the context of Catholicism of course).
A
anon5216
Guest
Don’t you realize that your argument holds no water since all of this was foretold in the Old Testament? One example:
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
And this contradicts my statement how?
You want to see (more) hubris?!
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.” (Daniel 2:24-45 NIV)
And this kingdom is now existing where? (In a manner that can be proven)
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”” (Matthew 16:17-19)
As the CC wrote the NT, I can see them making these claims and attributing them to Jesus.
Why should I believe the CC?
Myth!
Myth is defined (as the primary definition) as “a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”
Are you seriously claiming this doesn’t describe the - umm, stories - held dear in the Christian tradition?
What is such a threatening thing about this concept anyway?
Outpouring of Spirit
Holy Spirit,
we ask for an outpouring of your graces, blessings and gifts, < in Your own way >
upon those who do not believe, that they may believe; < that they may find Truth, and not just a belief they think as being truth >
Upon those who are doubtful or confused, that they may understand; < in the highest sense of the word >
Upon those who are lukewarm or indifferent, that they may be transformed; < Padre Pio certainly wasn’t lukewarm - may more and more Catholics heed his example >
Upon those who are constantly living in the state of sin, that they may be converted;
Upon those who are weak, that they may be strengthened;
Upon those who are holy, that they may persevere.
Amen.
< Yes, amen to that. >
T
tqualey
Guest
Heads up, Anon5216,
If you are interested in Freudian defense mechanisms - and, how to apply them - just look at who is on what site. The CAF has as its goal answering questions about the Catholic Faith and interacting in honest dialogue. Now, just look at what have been doing here…
You go to great lengths to call Catholicism a ‘myth’, yet, your apparent interest in having your position labeled as " invincible ignorance" simply defies the definition (here is a link you may find helpful: newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm ). Simply refusing to believe ("…didn’t buy into it…") lacks moral integrity. The bottom line: you really can not have it both ways.
If you continue to engage members of CAF, you will find that they do not think Catholicism is a ‘myth’ and they take the teachings of Christ quite seriously. They also take quite seriously all of those people who have been officially declared as Saints - very special friends of God. Pare Pio would be an example. Have you noticed how you keep on going back to him - seriously? Then you turn around an say that he may be special, but not that special when you look at other belief systems.
Do as you will. But, do not try under any circumstances that when it comes to the True Faith (and, that would be the Catholic Faith) you have some type of ‘claim’ to " invincible ignorance"! The basis for integrity is that you have honestly and without prejudice evaluated the Cathoic Faith and made a decison. Based on what you have said, this has not happened. My recommendation would be to start all over - and, use Padre Pio as a model - and then see where you stand.
Anyone can huff and puff about ‘myth’, but mister, you - like me - will be called upon to make an accounting of our words and deeds. You had better make sure your apparent contempt is not ultimately inspired by the Enemy of God - the Devil - lest you wind up an everlasting fool in one hell of a place.
God bless
If you are interested in Freudian defense mechanisms - and, how to apply them - just look at who is on what site. The CAF has as its goal answering questions about the Catholic Faith and interacting in honest dialogue. Now, just look at what have been doing here…
You go to great lengths to call Catholicism a ‘myth’, yet, your apparent interest in having your position labeled as " invincible ignorance" simply defies the definition (here is a link you may find helpful: newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm ). Simply refusing to believe ("…didn’t buy into it…") lacks moral integrity. The bottom line: you really can not have it both ways.
If you continue to engage members of CAF, you will find that they do not think Catholicism is a ‘myth’ and they take the teachings of Christ quite seriously. They also take quite seriously all of those people who have been officially declared as Saints - very special friends of God. Pare Pio would be an example. Have you noticed how you keep on going back to him - seriously? Then you turn around an say that he may be special, but not that special when you look at other belief systems.
Do as you will. But, do not try under any circumstances that when it comes to the True Faith (and, that would be the Catholic Faith) you have some type of ‘claim’ to " invincible ignorance"! The basis for integrity is that you have honestly and without prejudice evaluated the Cathoic Faith and made a decison. Based on what you have said, this has not happened. My recommendation would be to start all over - and, use Padre Pio as a model - and then see where you stand.
Anyone can huff and puff about ‘myth’, but mister, you - like me - will be called upon to make an accounting of our words and deeds. You had better make sure your apparent contempt is not ultimately inspired by the Enemy of God - the Devil - lest you wind up an everlasting fool in one hell of a place.
God bless
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Right back at ya. Finally, your true reasons for posting here unveiled?
Psycho-analysis - either amateur or a liberal arts grad with a faded diploma circa 1960s who is out of work with a revoked licence?
Anon, you are a moral and religious relativist. So without an objective standard how do you know you are not projecting your own disordered thinking here? BTW - all projections provoke counter-projection when the object is unconscious of the quality projected upon it by the subject. Without an objective standard when interacting in your relativistic world I am free to spin it anyway I like just like you do.
But Anon, bro, you need to updated you psych library. Freud was the exemplar of pseudoscience; an incompetent and bullying psychoanalyst; and a classic pathological liar who is known to have falsified his study-data to “project” and advance his own theories. Anyone with common sense can see that he himself had major disorders (impressionable by the occult & sexual fetishes, cocaine use, anti-mother/female etc.) and self-abusive behaviors (and was seeking to disavow person responsibility for one’s own behaviors and find clinical data to blame environmental factors to excuse every form of deviant sexuality and dementia he could project into children’s behavior. I suspect you know he is where we get the modern slang “anal retentive” - which would describe a lot of his works had he not succeeded in infecting the psyche of all liberally “predisposed” adults in America.
His theories advanced experimentation with socially suppressed bisexualism and homosexual behaviors during the height of the American sexual revolution and in my opinion were instrumental to undermining America’s prior conservative moral social-dynamic.Most of Freud’s theories have since been scientifically discredited.
Allow me to make a highly probable guess too that you also enjoy Friedrich Nietzsche’s works?
A mind that does not accept objective truth can project such conjectures and possibilities in most anything it wants to since such minds are formed on a hermeneutic of suspicion and intrinsically mistrusting and even paranoid. I concede the possibility that axiomatic truths are not always manifest to those who are predisposed to a contrarian view and will make all truth just a convenient mythology except in seeing that same condition in themselves.
Why would you think I don’t have a spiritual advisor? I have two actually and usually meet once per month. One is a lay Carmelite Community director and the other is my Catholic Priest who is presently trying to get me to change my rough draft salvation plan from doing lots of penance (prayer and fasting), works of mercy, charitable service and approved plenary indulgences to getting out to help at a foreign mission or else enter the priesthood.
I skim for substance and when I find it I read and re-read and analyze. Most of your stuff is a quick read.
To what productive end is it to have discourse with no objective? Are you here to socialize or just here to keep Catholic apologists busy in rhetorical exchanges so they can’t be more productive elsewhere? I will confide that I have not one shred of insecurity about my faith but notice that you hardly ever seem to rebut or deny any of the “nonsence” I make up so I assume its not nonsence. I find that shooting over the bow and under the bow is a fairly effective heuristic to find out just “where” you are in your beliefs since you don’t really tell us exactly what you believe. That is a sign of a person “searching” yet you more often seem inclined to want to give spiritual advise that no one here sees having any pedigree attached to it.
Who does a spiritual-relativist pray to?
James
T
tqualey
Guest
Hey, James - best wishes on your descernment. That OCarm. sounds like a tough character…
About the only negative thing I would say on this post … go easy on those c1960’s baccalaureate diplomas … yes, it is starting to fade… but… I had a lot of fun getting that degree (the other 3 were just killers!) and think most kindly of it
About the only negative thing I would say on this post … go easy on those c1960’s baccalaureate diplomas … yes, it is starting to fade… but… I had a lot of fun getting that degree (the other 3 were just killers!) and think most kindly of it
Best wishes and God bless on your future plans.Right back at ya. Finally, your true reasons for posting here unveiled?
Psycho-analysis - either amateur or a liberal arts grad with a faded diploma circa 1960s who is out of work with a revoked licence?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Thanks - it sounds like you best me by 1 sheepskin. I have 3 college degrees - 1 undergraduate and 2 graduate level (didn’t care for a PhD since everytime you open your mouth or write a paper you entire reputation is on the line). I tossed them all into the trash can 4 years ago when I opted out of the rat-race we call “corporate America”. I was one of the lucky few who was able to use that knowledge to pragmatic financial advancement (with a lot of hard work and sacrifice) to retire 15 years earlier than I had imagined was possible. But I no longer value my college education and find that I can learn a lot more on my own continuing independent studies. Most Catholics lose their religion and their common-sense within the first 2 years at college as they are assimilated by the liberal American college experience and coaxed into compromising their morality to “fit in” with the culture. Enough said about that…Hey, James - best wishes on your descernment. That OCarm. sounds like a tough character…
About the only negative thing I would say on this post … go easy on those c1960’s baccalaureate diplomas … yes, it is starting to fade… but… I had a lot of fun getting that degree (the other 3 were just killers!) and think most kindly of it
Best wishes and God bless on your future plans.
If Catholics studied their religion 1/5 as much as they do other educational topics and relate it to their world context there would be a revolution in the Church to revitalize it with young blood and start a new wave of Catholic evangelizing. The more and more I learn about the saints and the church history the more I am inclined to see the current generation as “wimpy”. The saints and the early Catholics gave up everything to advance Catholicism and The Church. We need to get that sense of self-sacrifice and toughness back.
Sorry if my comments made you feel like your education was dated but you know I was not casting my net in your direction. The other fact is that those diplomas meant a lot more 40 years or more ago than they mean today. In those days there was less grade curving, less plagiarizing, less cheating and much less diploma mill phenomena. I always used to scratch my head in amazement about how hard I worked for my undergrad diploma compared to how easy my masters level work was.
Back to OP…
James
A
anon5216
Guest
Tom,
With this post you veer back into reasonable discussion. As I said before, I don’t mind disagreement and confrontation of contrasting legitimate ideas and beliefs.
That I can respect.
With this post you veer back into reasonable discussion. As I said before, I don’t mind disagreement and confrontation of contrasting legitimate ideas and beliefs.
That I can respect.
Heads up, Anon5216,
If you are interested in Freudian defense mechanisms - and, how to apply them - just look at who is on what site. The CAF has as its goal answering questions about the Catholic Faith and interacting in honest dialogue. Now, just look at what have been doing here…
You go to great lengths to call Catholicism a ‘myth’, Again, see the primary definition I told you I was using in my prior post. I explicitly am not using the secondary meaning of “a widely held but false belief or idea”.
yet, your apparent interest in having your position labeled as " invincible ignorance" Again, see my prior post #338 - I explicitly explained I do not have the agenda of the CC itself officially labeling my position as “invincible ignorance”.
simply defies the definition (here is a link you may find helpful: newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm ).
I asked this question originally to elicit clarity on how the CC uses the term.
While I may find the definition presented a bit superficial, I’m not going to argue with the CC to change their definition.
I did read through the link you gave and it is a clear presentation of how the CC uses the term. Thanks.
Simply refusing to believe ("…didn’t buy into it…") lacks moral integrity. The bottom line: you really can not have it both ways.
To simple believe something you are told without rational assessment lacks moral integrity.
I would hope that you yourself actually did due diligence before concluding to believe and accept the spiritual path as presented by the CC.
If you did (and ongoing do), I have complete respect for your choices and conclusions. If you just believe because you’re told to and don’t question a thing - I’d consider you a fool.
By even continuing this interaction, I’m working under the assumption that you personally did your due diligence.
If you continue to engage members of CAF, you will find that they do not think Catholicism is a ‘myth’ and they take the teachings of Christ quite seriously. Again, see my clarification above - the primary definition is not at all at odds with taking Catholic teachings seriously.
They also take quite seriously all of those people who have been officially declared as Saints - very special friends of God. Pare Pio would be an example. Have you noticed how you keep on going back to him - seriously? Then you turn around an say that he may be special, but not that special when you look at other belief systems.
I know the CC insists on unique exclusivity in this area, but my acknowledging other humans as having achieved spiritual greatness does not diminish Padre Pio one iota.
To say that his spiritual achievements are not unique is not saying he’s no big deal. Spirituality is not a zero sum game.
Do as you will. But, do not try under any circumstances that when it comes to the True Faith (and, that would be the Catholic Faith) you have some type of ‘claim’ to " invincible ignorance"! I make no such ‘claim’ - Again, see above and post #338.
The basis for integrity is that you have honestly and without prejudice evaluated the Cathoic Faith and made a decison. Based on what you have said, this has not happened. My recommendation would be to start all over - and, use Padre Pio as a model - and then see where you stand.
As I have not given you my entire life story, including all aspects of my personal spiritual seeking and practices, given the brief posts I’ve presented, you can fairly interpret I haven’t demonstrated that I’ve done my due diligence.
However, that’s not the case. I have done my due diligence and come to different conclusions than you have from your due diligence.
Anyone can huff and puff about ‘myth’, but mister, you - like me - will be called upon to make an accounting of our words and deeds. Again, I’m not using the derogatory alternate definition of ‘myth’ so drop the ‘huff and puff’ stuff already.
You had better make sure your apparent contempt is not ultimately inspired by the Enemy of God - the Devil - lest you wind up an everlasting fool in one hell of a place.
Don’t confuse non-acceptance of CC dogma and claimed authority as contempt.
If I had actual contempt for Catholicism, (as a general position - you have to admit that there will always be specific individuals who scandalize the entire organization with their personal contemptible corruption),
I would never mention someone like Padre Pio as an example of a spiritual giant.
Nor would I insist regularly that I see no reason for someone who is spiritually at home in the CC to ever leave it.
God bless
A
anon5216
Guest
…
Most of Freud’s theories have since been scientifically discredited.
Agreed, Freud pretty much projected his own neuroses and delusions on others.
That would be the one theory of his that he proved by his own example.
Allow me to make a highly probable guess too that you also enjoy Friedrich Nietzsche’s works?
Wrong guess. Several years back C.J.Jung was interesting, as well as Erich Neumann and James Hillman - but that would just be as opposed to Mr. Freud.
I never felt drawn to study Nietzsche. I find Tielhard de Chardin, Meister Ekhardt and Aurobindo Ghose far more interesting.
A mind that does not accept objective truth can project such conjectures and possibilities in most anything it wants to since such minds are formed on a hermeneutic of suspicion and intrinsically mistrusting and even paranoid. I concede the possibility that axiomatic truths are not always manifest to those who are predisposed to a contrarian view and will make all truth just a convenient mythology except in seeing that same condition in themselves.
As much as they may seem to be from within the CC perspective, the CC’s claims are not objective truths.
Why would you think I don’t have a spiritual advisor? Just the text of your post that I was responding to.
I have two actually and usually meet once per month. One is a lay Carmelite Community director and the other is my Catholic Priest who is presently trying to get me to change my rough draft salvation plan from doing lots of penance (prayer and fasting), works of mercy, charitable service and approved plenary indulgences to getting out to help at a foreign mission or else enter the priesthood.
I skim for substance and when I find it I read and re-read and analyze. Most of your stuff is a quick read.
Thanks, I try to keep things clear and to the point - without introducing unnecessary filler.
To what productive end is it to have discourse with no objective?
Here we get to the crux of the matter of why our exchanges have frequently degenerated.
My objective is obscure to you. You give the impression that discourse, at least here, can have only one meaningful objective: to convince the other party of your point of view.
(If you want to insist you are just presenting the CC point of view, I can go along with that up to a point).
When the other person does not give in and accept your (CC) point of view, you become angry little boy Jimmy - and start spouting nonsense.
My objective is not just to either convince or be convinced of a stated belief.
Are you here to socialize or just here to keep Catholic apologists busy in rhetorical exchanges so they can’t be more productive elsewhere?
That would be your response to my previous sentence - and a valid question. But no, I’m not really a generic socializer - I do get benefit from engaging in vigorous spiritual discussions.
I just assume that others who are secure in their faith don’t mind tackling tough questions and could actually derive benefit from responding to such discussions regardless of ‘winning’.
I will confide that I have not one shred of insecurity about my faith but notice that you hardly ever seem to rebut or deny any of the “nonsence” I make up so I assume its not nonsence.
James, I do respond to things you post rationally.
The “nonsense” I refer to is when you don’t succeed in converting the other person and become angry little boy Jimmy. The things you post in that mode fit the Freudian projection model.
To me, a pressing need to have others accept and agree to your own mode of faith is a very telling sign of insecurity - all the more so when lack of acceptance results in irrational angry outbursts.
I find that shooting over the bow and under the bow is a fairly effective heuristic to find out just “where” you are in your beliefs since you don’t really tell us exactly what you believe. That is a sign of a person “searching” yet you more often seem inclined to want to give spiritual advise that no one here sees having any pedigree attached to it.
James, I don’t give spiritual advice in a discussion of differences of theological views. I just present my personal take on the subject.
Also, as I noted to you directly on more than one occasion, I don’t have any pedigree or credentials and never claim any.
The reason I don’t spell out a set of belief statements is that my spiritual life is not based on a set of belief statements.
As I noted in an earlier post on this thread, I am divesting myself as much as possible from such myths.
Beliefs can only get you so far - then you have to make the leap to what the belief was only hinting at.
Who does a spiritual-relativist pray to?
Not being one myself, I have no idea.
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Are you claiming infallability? Prove it or give evidence to cast plausible suspicion. What credentials do you offer of your own? Oh, yeah, you admit you have no credentials.
BTW - when I really am angry (rare) I give good clues like ! or emoticons.
I will remind you to stay on topic. The mods are not going to permit you to derail yet another OP into a self-centered discussion formed around your own self serving interests. Have you ever sat back and objectively looked at your own posting histories Anon? Most everything has a self-orbiting sort of gravity to it that brings the locus of attention to yourself. That is selfish and while we might all be inclined to social discourse to humor you there are thousands of other people who read these forum discussions who are genuinely interested in the original OP topics at hand.
And here I invite you too also please drop the current pattern of passive-aggressive condescension in your attempt to use the expression “Jimmy” as a diminutive. If you knew me personally and were speaking to me in person I doubt you would be so foolish as to attempt to construct a parent-child relationship as you fail to do here. So why hide behind the skirt of anonymity and put on false airs of intellectual and moral superiority to imagine you can spank people who are at least your intellectual, spiritual and physical peers that could just as easily take you over their own knee to prove your assumptions childish? See I can play the passive-aggressive game as well as you can dad.
Really, If you want to play the game of “guru on the mountain” please go start a new OP maybe called “Come to Anon’s Mountain” where you can entertain anyone who wants to play in your own private sandbox for as long as the mods permit it to run and not derail this OP. You have contributed very little to the actual OP and are offering no evidence that you have found another way to gain salvation nor put forward any positive dialog that furthers the topic in point counter-point fashion. All you are doing is using opinionated attacks to draw the locus of discourse to yourself. Again - I think you are being selfish.
Your objective is to dominate the discussion and keep it centered on your own selfish need to feel relevant and to gain greater self affirmation. Time to contribute to the OP or move on Anon.
We invite tough questions - but dismiss unproductive rhetoric. It is you who are predisposed to see things as a pure win-lose contest rather than a deepening of faith or a means to gain insights that lead to faith. I really think you are searching and that is good. But your style leaves a lot to be desired. You try to shape the discussion by “forcing” the dialog around your own agenda by using provocative terms like calling Catholic belief “mythology” then play a Punch and Judy game and claim you use secondary conventions on the definition. Get some style and get sincere.
And you can reliably read anger over the Internet? Again you are trying to define a parent-child relationship to judge and admonish and criticize as if you have a superior basis of objectivity. I will not be drawn into this line of critical dialog with you just to help feed your need to feel relevant and for you to gain self-actualization and self affirmation in your private spiritual voyeurism. But if you want to play the psychiatrist and feel a need to psychoanalyze people to feel secure in your own beliefs why not go get a practitioner’s licence and practice on people who will pay you for your services. As it is you are close to being illicitly practicing medicine without a license. Doctor, cure thy self.
BTW I can convert no one - only God can do that. All we can do here is give insights and doctrine to help others come into the truth and receive the faith.
[continued]
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
[from prior]
James
They pray tell how can you dare assert as if you are infallable that Catholicism is mythology?? Are you admitting that this is just a personal disorder where you feel that you can make condescending assertions with no pedigree or fact and that we should not listen to you? Are you here to test how many people will listen to anyone who provokes reason? Hmm - interesting experiment. I can see now that we are wasting too much time taking you seriously.
In other words you are just flotsam and jetsom on the seas of life and will just float to land on whatever distant shore nature happens to blow you too. Are you a fatalist who just likes to go with the flow? You have an alien sort of philosophy. Were you raised under eastern social-religious influence? You profess to have no beliefs and rules but you contradict yourself by consistently giving out dogmas: “beliefs can only get you so far - then you have to make the leap to the [the truth behind the belief”]. Do you understand the concept of transubstantiation? Ironic, that part of what you say here is related to Eucharist but you need to understand that belief and faith are conjoined when the unity is supernatural truth.
You told me you would pray for me and I don’t want my name mentioned around any false gods or idols. Why dance here? Answer my question. Who or what do you pray to?
James
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
I’m going to remind you all one last time to maintain the highest levels of charity or expect moderator intervention and possible citations as well as closing of the thread.
Personal comments need to be avoided as the topic is already complex enough and they detract from the discussion.
As per the Forum Rules
PRIVATE MESSAGING
Personal comments need to be avoided as the topic is already complex enough and they detract from the discussion.
As per the Forum Rules
PRIVATE MESSAGING
*]If you have something to say to an individual member that is not of general interest to the board, use the private messaging system.
*]Inappropriate or harassing private messages are not permitted.
J
jean8
Guest
LOOK,
yES, ‘REALLY.’
sEE WHAT THE bIBLE READS. ePH.2:8,-9 ROM.10:9-10
mY PC IS ABOUT TO CRASH. tHIS IS HOW its typing
GOD BLESS,
JEAN
- Status