Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[prodigalson2011]

Thanks, Tony.
Interesting point and so true … a denial of the role of reason **is **a form of pride. We might be tempted to set aside reason to just follow our impulses – but reason will help us make the best decisions. That is, reason – along with – spiritual insight or intuition.

I hope Gaber will take some time to reply.

Not to mention the inherent absurdity of arguing against reason!
An imploding enterprise if ever there was one!

 

[Gaber]

Your view conflicts with the Gospel text though.

And, if that is true according to your interpretation, the problem with that for you is?

It’s not true that you possess the direct, immediate vision of the Blessed Trinity. Your resistance to that fact says something … are you so arrogant as to present yourself as one who has achieved the spiritual perfection that Unity requires? I’m sorry, but that’s certainly the way it sounds.

That seems to be the way you are reading it, as you seem to have a tendency to overlay what you read with your personal context. But that is what conversations and discussions are for, and teleology. I am positive that such a state as you name is extant and even that a handful of folks on Earth enjoy it. I don’t believe that I named what I’m talking about as other than a different state of awareness than the ordinary s/o one most folks walk around asleep in. What I am doing, if anything, is pointing to the fact that awareness underlies its contents and is experiencable at a pure state. And that having experienced that state, the perception of the world and the nature of one;s mind changes radically. Thus one’s reasoning about the Nature of the world is informed from a more comprehensive state of understanding, And that comprehension is applicable as well to one’s understanding of religious matters, as much, having had that, is interpreted from, again, a more inclusive base. To not agree with the efficacy of that, if I was to use a form that you fellows often use, is to be irrational, self limiting, and constitutes being happy wit limits. that’s fine, if it is what you want for yourself. But how does that invalidate what meditators of every background and culture have experienced and put forth as a possible result of the proper methodology?

You’ve fallen very short of the mark, Gaber. I’m forced to talk about you because that’s the only topic you offer us. It’s all about your world, and not about God, not about His Church, not about orthodox teaching, not about the moral imperatives that Christ gave us – but all we have is what we can know about you.

What “mark” would that be? swallowing uncritically your constructed “design” bias? I am not talking about myself. I am talking about a possibility inherent in even a person seeming so obdurately uninterested in self discovery as y’all.

As Catholics, we’re taught to discern spirits. How do we know a person is a true prophet or a false one? How do we know a visionary is true or false?

The first, fundamental rule is to test what the self-proclaimed prophet says.
Second, test what he is.

If the prophet argues against the Catholic Faith, we know that cannot be the work of God.
We can discuss that if you want – it’s a different topic, but I can show you why orthodox Catholic teaching is the measure of true spirituality, and a deviation from Catholic belief is proof that there is error and falsehood in the spiritual claim.

That is great. How are you aware of what you you believe? With what? What is first: your belief or your awareness? Are you claiming that because you believe therefore you are aware as a human? And I have said numerous times that what I am talking about is inherent in the Faith, only thickly veiled. Why do you think I refer to the Carmalites and some of the Saints? And for God’s sake, why are you using the word “prophet?”

If the prophet does not reveal the basic, fundamental virtues that are absolutely required of a true spiritual foundation – then that is a very strong indication that there is falsehood and deceit involved, either intentional or not.
That’s all we’re left with in discerning what you have to say.

So how is my stating that experiencing this state make clear the reason for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule different from what you claim to be absolutely required? Again remembering that you are purveying a belief? And you don’t even intellectually discern what I say or you would be making talking points instead of denying the validity of such a state by dismissal.

Do you speak about God? Not really.
Do you speak about a burning love of Christ and of His teaching. No.
Are you interested in submitting, purely and simply, to the divine truths given through the Church? No.
Do you place your own esoteric, ambiguous opinions above the doctrines of the Magisterium of the Church? Yes.
Do you prefer to focus on mental awareness than on the beauty, power, love and nature of God? Yes.

I do not speak about God because if we haven’t arrived together at an agreement of what we use to apprehend and speak with is, speaking about God is less than useless. I love you enough to care to persist in offering a way out of some of your limitations in what you think your relationship with God is. Pure and simple submission is not an act of will, it is the realization of an always already pre existing state which acknowledges Divinity as the Source and content of ALL. And again, I don;t contradict the truths, I question the exactitude and accuracy of the mediumship in conveying them. And they are not simply my “own esoteric, ambiguous opinions,” as they are neither solely mine, not did I invent them, nor are they ambiguous. And as for the Beauty, Power, Love, and Nature of God, where do those exist and where are those perceived outside of awareness? So if your awareness is increased, is not your appreciation of those qualities increased as well? I would like to report that they are.

These are all indicators that you do not possess the divine vision. Of course – that should be obvious. You’re struggling to find the truth.

I would say that since you don’t have even an intellectual comprehension of what I’m pointing to, you may not be competent to say what I do or don’t have, and especially what I haven’t claimed to have in your terms as a straw man. Perhaps you have been influenced by someone else who protests too much.

There’s nothing wrong with that Gaber. What is wrong is that you won’t admit that, and you pretend that you don’t need to engage in that. You pretend that you can actually see the truth when it’s obvious that you don’t.

What is the Truth?

You are not in a state of Unity. Period. It’s up to you do deny that and assert the opposite. You do not possess the direct, immediate vision of the Blessed Trinity.
I’m not trying to embarrass you, but this is necessary for you to recognize and admit.

Embarrassed? Mine is covered, thank you. I never claimed that vision, so have no right to deny it. As for Unity, that might be understood differently from a different perspective than your beliefs about it. It might be something radically different than what your thinking leads you to believe.

The direct vision transcends the changeability of the mind – it’s the Unity with the Unchanging. “… we will be like Him”.

No kidding! So we are agreed as to the end of practice!

We no longer need to talk about the limits of reason because we have the Vision.

Yes, but we appear to need to talk about it now, as you seem to be relying on it as a primary approach to the Ineluctable.

Again, you do not possess that vision. Period. That is a clear and obvious fact.
To refute me, just point me (off line to protect confidentiality) to one Catholic priest who will attest that you authentically possess the Divine Vision – directly. That should be easy.

And again, you have no clue as to what I have because you do not know what you are. And you would accept the verdict of a man as to another’s state based on your consensus reality with that individual? That is hubris. It would be simpler and far mor accurate for you to do the do, get past your thoughts about, actually experience what I’m talking about, and make your own authoritative decision not about me, but who and what you are in Truth to yourself.

(continued)

 

[Gaber]

(continued)

Here’s where you’re completely wrong and offering false teaching.
None of the Catholic Saints mediated ON silence. You capitalize Silence like it’s a god of some kind – that’s the idolatry I’m trying to show you. You’re meditating on a natural thing – something created. That’s the evil that is subtle but very real.

You may be talking about quietism, which is not what I’m speaking about or referring to. and you are right about that. And it is why I capitalize it to make the distinction that is easily undiscerned as you demonstrate.

The saints meditated IN silence – and they mediated ON God alone. ON the perfection and fullness of God. They forgot themselves, they had NO NEED for mental techniques or even understandings of their own awarness or lack of reason. If they meditated on On themselves, or ON silence, or ON awareness or ON their own minds – they removed themselves from God.

I am happy for you that you have such a facile understanding of what a Saint does, Clearly you have experienced that and are not reading it from a book or repeating doctrine, but speaking extemporaneously from your experience. Awesome. But really, you haven’t a clue, or you couldn’t have just said all that. but you are right. One only need forget themselves. that is the point of adoration. And the understanding of awareness and perspective on reason comes after. “Signs following.”

Further, when you get what Silence I’m talking about, we might have a superb confab!

That’s a beautiful example of your problem in a nutshell. You’re always talking about mind and awareness but never on God. You cannot love God fully until He is everything and you realize you are His creature. You need to submit and subject yourself to Him - not to your own opinions.

You are completely right. That does work up to a point. Did that for decades.

But unfortunately, it’s all about your own opinions in every one of our discussion and never about submission to Him (correction – you do admit that He introduced you to awarness, but you substitute that awareness for Him).

Again, not a competent intellectual understanding of what I propose. Back to reading.

Where is the gratitude, Gaber? How do you thank Christ for what He gives you? By rejecting the Church He died for?

Very piously stated. I have no doubt that you earned some applause for that one. But again a sad assumption on your part. While here we are dealing with a technical matter such that I don’t see many Hosannas issuing from many in this thread, that not being the point. My day, personally, is built on a sense of gratitude that has over my many decades only increased in dimension and depth. Those who listen to my exclamations of awe and gratitude will attest to that. Come visit some time. If you dare.

I think I’ve offered some clarity for you to consider. Go and read what I said.

Yes, I have many times. It is why I persist on attempting to clarify what you consistently mistake.

I don’t consider myself the maker of reality.

That is too bad, because that is exactly what we do as far as our personal reality is concerned. That is precisely why it is so crucial in these matters to go beyond the discursive mind. One has to get reins on the horse of the mind beyond the tying to the training post that serves as a beginning.

Again, I am a creature, not the Creator. This the arrogance that you seem to be presenting. Supposedly, you are the Creator of your own reality – this leaves no room or need for God. This explains why you never refer to Him or to His moral law. You dismiss the Church because it’s “not your problem” – you’ve made your own church, which is yourself.

Are you not a creature which creates? You are doing a superb job, and your mind id doing exactly what it is designed to do! Are you not grateful for this gift, this talent? No one has created themselves in essence, however, no matter how adept we are at building our private picture of the world. To assume such a thing would be madness, something I’m thinking you might suspect me of. But you would be right. I am mad with the passion of love for what IS. And I state it that way because the ideas pinned to the word “God” have been so–so–what? overwrought with limits.

And there sure seems to be a lot of room for opinions about God and what Divinity is about. But God as IS is the Light to them all, right? Who would have an idea or a thought if it was not a gift from Divinity, the Giver of every good and perfect gift?

Also I’ve often referred to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, the roots of all the other strictures and admonitions. So I’m not quite sure where you get about not including morals and law. And I’m concerned about the cumbersomness of the Church, not its Truth.

You’re cut off from the Community of the Faithful – the Communion of Saints. Because you have no need for them. Again, that’s just simple arrogance and egoism. We all face that temptation, but yours is public and affirmative. So I feel the need to point that out in hopes of correcting you.

Wow. Sorry. I ought have more respect for you. Didn’t realize that you are the arbitrator of all that. How do you know what I have a need for from your misinterpretations of what I state? Back to reading.

You’re a lapsed Catholic. You avoid going to Mass. You don’t confess your mortal sins. Those are accurate descriptions based on facts.

Are we supposed to report hubris such as yours to the proctors? Are you my judge and not God? Boy, have I been praying up the wrong tree!

Gaber, I am trying everything I can to open **your **excellent mind – because I think you’re worth it. I am praying for you because you’re not on the right path – although I think in your heart you truly want to be.

I appreciate your wonderful ability to see into my heart, even though from your vast misunderstandings of what I say I’m led to think that your vision has a mote of error in it. But thanks. I appreciate that you think kindly of me, even if erroneously.

Yes, it would be. Keep in mind, what you’re harping about is not new (as you know) and it’s also completely unnecessary for you to keep harping, especially when your own views are in need of reform and improvement.

Yes, from your standpoint of misunderstanding, I see why you would or could say that. But I try to be kind and patient and therefore am repetitive. One man said that tho point of repetition is penetration. And there was the story I told a way back of the genius who read that shot book 26(!) times before he had clarity about how he was overlaying his own paradigm on the author. Maybe you on’y need to read my posts 15 times, but whatever you are doing in terms of reps, it is too light a weight.

True prayer is a communication of Love. That’s basic. We know that. We can know that fully without disparaging reason. You continue to attack reason, you continue to act as if reason is unnecessary. But in the Catholic view, BOTH reason and transcendence are necessary. Dogma and Mysticism must work together. Doctrine without mystical love is empty legalism. Mysticism without true doctrine is fanaticism.

I have done none of that, as you will see if you actually read what I wrote. I’m only advocating that reason has a limited use, as brilliant and overarching tool as it is. I’m not attacking reason by any means. I’m attempting to point out that it may not have the primacy you give it in the kind of area you are requiring it to function in the way you wish to use it. So why are you not following the tenets you state in that paragraph? Are you concerned that you might discover what dogma is about?

We have to have a balance of both. Not reason alone, not intuition alone.

As I’ve been saying all along. Thanks for your agreement.

 

[reggieM]

Not to mention the inherent absurdity of arguing against reason!
An imploding enterprise if ever there was one!

Agreed!

We’re not going to make any progress until we get that solved.

 

[reggieM]

And, if that is true according to your interpretation, the problem with that for you is?

I see a kind gentleman who has gotten lost in some serious errors. We are taught to try to help one another. So, your confusion is a problem for me. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – yes, I am to the degree that I have the chance to help.

I am positive that such a state as you name is extant and even that a handful of folks on Earth enjoy it

You do not.

I don’t believe that I named what I’m talking about as other than a different state of awareness than the ordinary s/o one most folks walk around asleep in.

You do not possess the Divine Vision. Again, you struggle to admit that. As for being “other than the ordinary” – on the contrary, I can show you people who have abused psychedelic drugs who say the same thing you do. Your religious attitude is run-of-the-mill New Age liberalism. So, the fact that you want to establish yourself as “not ordinary” is merely more proof that there’s a problem. And this is what we’ve been saying repeatedly – you’ve set yourself above everyone else. But I can see no basis at all for you to do that.

What I am doing, if anything, is pointing to the fact that awareness underlies its contents and is experiencable at a pure state. And that having experienced that state, the perception of the world and the nature of one;s mind changes radically.

Sure – and psychedelic drugs can radically change your mind also. Big deal.

Thus one’s reasoning about the Nature of the world is informed from a more comprehensive state of understanding,

You’ve given no evidence at all that you have a more comprensive understanding of nature than anyone else. In fact, you have not even understood the topic until only recently – the fact that you’re learning is good. But I think it’s ground for humility rather than more continual praise of your own intellectual powers.

And that comprehension is applicable as well to one’s understanding of religious matters, as much, having had that, is interpreted from, again, a more inclusive base. To not agree with the efficacy of that, if I was to use a form that you fellows often use, is to be irrational, self limiting, and constitutes being happy wit limits.

That’s a good point, and I appreciate your use of terms that we understand. Yes, if you had a deeper understanding of all of reality, then this would provide a deeper theological insight. It’s up to you to show that you have it. Thus far, we know you do not possess the unitive Vision. Now – what do you possess? What evidence of understanding do we find from you? Continued assertions about your own powers? Constant repetition of a single concept that has no evidential support in your own life?

But how does that invalidate what meditators of every background and culture have experienced and put forth as a possible result of the proper methodology?

You’ve made these facile comments dozens of times. Cite the exact teaching within the Christian tradition, for a start. Refer to some interpretations of that teaching outside of your own opinion. That’s how scholarship works. That’s how theology works. Only then can we start evaluating your claims. We don’t invent our own theology – it comes from the data of revelation.
Unless you’re going to claim that you have a new revelation of some kind, you have to refer to what is in books. That is something else you’ve disparaged as “book learning”.

What “mark” would that be? swallowing uncritically your constructed “design” bias?

Let’s start with “a true understanding of God and nature”.

How are you aware of what you you believe?

In the same way that I am aware of what I’m writing to you.

With what?

Consciousness.

What is first: your belief or your awareness?

They are simultaneous.

Are you claiming that because you believe therefore you are aware as a human?

Belief is an indivisible component of awareness. Belief will pass away when we possess the Vision.

And I have said numerous times that what I am talking about is inherent in the Faith, only thickly veiled. Why do you think I refer to the Carmalites and some of the Saints?

It’s always about you, Gaber. As I explained. You ask me to think about your own confused understanding and actually try to guess why you do things – then you get offended when I explain why you’re so confused.

You need to take the focus off of yourself for a while – ok?

And for God’s sake, why are you using the word “prophet?”

It lines up with the claims you make about yourself.

So how is my stating that experiencing this state make clear the reason for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule different from what you claim to be absolutely required?

You haven’t stated or explained that. I don’t think you’re even aware of what you’re saying. How can you talk about a higher “non ordinary” awareness when you can’t even remember what you’ve done or haven’t done?

You mention the Great Commandment (now) but that’s more of the cafeteria Catholicism that we’re all very familiar with. You give no support, evidence or reference for this. It’s just a phrase that you pick out and assert – and is therefore meaningless. You could deny the Great Commandment in the very same breath and it would mean the same.

You have to explain things – not just assert them.

I do not speak about God because if we haven’t arrived together at an agreement of what we use to apprehend and speak with is, speaking about God is less than useless.

This is yet another contradiction since you talk about all other topics including your own, supposed comprehensive awareness of reality. There’s a reason why you don’t refer to God - or to Christ.

I love you enough to care to persist in offering a way out of some of your limitations in what you think your relationship with God is.

I’ll use your words – can you judge my soul and my relationship with God?

And again, I don;t contradict the truths, I question the exactitude and accuracy of the mediumship in conveying them

.

That is just sophistry as I see it. You directly contradict the teachings of the Church. In your more candid, less formal moments you admit that freely with a smile and joke. You do not accept the teaching of the Church. You do not want to live by the moral teaching that the Church offers – at the very least, to be a participating member of the Catholic community and worship God through the Eucharist each Sunday.

And as for the Beauty, Power, Love, and Nature of God, where do those exist and where are those perceived outside of awareness? So if your awareness is increased, is not your appreciation of those qualities increased as well? I would like to report that they are.

Certainly true, there has never been a debate here about that. So therefore, you’re really saying nothing that needed to be said or that adds any value to the conversation.

What is the Truth?

A famous question asked to Christ just before He was condemned to death.
How do you think Christ would answer that?

I never claimed that vision, so have no right to deny it.

Interesting way to deal with the question. But finally – yes, it’s true. You do not possess the Vision. You’re in the dark therefore, to whatever extent.

Can you see how hard it was for you to admit that?

As for Unity, that might be understood differently from a different perspective than your beliefs about it.

I’m a Catholic and I speak and understand within the Catholic tradition. You, however, reject the tradition so you can make things mean whatever you want. But you’re on a Catholic list so it’s probably best to use our understanding when possible.

So we are agreed as to the end of practice!

Yes, of course. This is a trivial point that built up your whole self-mythos around. This is basic Catholicism. We agree it is the end, and we agree that you have not achieved it.
So, you’re a man in need of help on that path.

And again, you have no clue as to what I have because you do not know what you are.

Much more than “no clue” I know you have rejected the Catholic community and the Eucharist, therefore – and you do not possess the Divine Vision, by your own admission. You do not possess Unity either, as understood from the Catholic perspective. So, I know quite a bit already. You haven’t been upfront about your moral views at all, but thus far, we just have the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment. Can I assume that you’re pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion? Do you deny the infalliblity of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception? Better yet, why not just tell me.
I have to ask because you have nothing I can reference except your own subjective opinion.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

1. You are correct in concluding there has to be a contrast with order but it is disorder rather than chaos - which is associated with total disorder.
2. Even in an orderly system coincidences lead to disorder - like collisions which occur as a result of the immense complexity of the universe.
3. Order is more fundamental than disorder because it is positive whereas disorder is negative.
4. “Nothing shall come of nothing.” - King Lear
5. Nothing presupposes something, darkness presupposes light, death presupposes life, absurdity presupposes reason and Chance* presupposes Design.

*Chance in the sense of “that which is irrational and purposeless”.

The 2+2=4 example wasn’t reviewed properly re motion in the context of the equation-question-outcome itself…(opinion

I think your trying to shape the nose in a sculpting before firming up a reasonable cranium
to work from…I will try to get back later and will read all the entries…it is very interesting. to read what people are thinking on this…Thanks

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Interesting comments – thanks.

A simple example of the use of reason is any distinction you make between what is true and what is false. This happens thousands of times a day for you. Reason is the conscious, free-will exercise that compares and (yes) contrasts the truth of things.

Exactly. We have two quantities and by adding them, we get a third. That is the use of reason.
We have one canvas to paint. We divide the canvas in half. Now we have … 5 halves of the canvas? No, obviously we have two halves. Thus, reason is essential to the task of painting.

Thanks and I’m a bit rushed right now. I will be following along reading-trying to get a scope on how people think on this.

True – reason separates, compares and contrasts. That is how we can determine the truth or falsehood of something. If everything was chaos, there would be nothing distinctive as an identity.

This is an important part of reasoning – the Law of Idenitity. A thing is the same as itself.

Socrates: How about sounds and colours: in the first place you would admit that they both exist?
Theaetetus: Yes.
Socrates: And that either of them is different from the other, and the same with itself?
Theaetetus: Certainly.
Socrates: And that both are two and each of them one?
Theaetetus: Yes.

Individual colors exist. They are different with each other and the same as themselves.
This is a start for reasoning.

That’s one way to say it – true.

It “includes” chaos because it separates order from chaos. Reason is the power that enables us to recognize truth and falsehood. Additionally, only reason can create order since order comes from regularity, not chaos.

I don’t see the difference. You explained that reason separates from chaos, so both chaos and order are at work. The same is with art. With no order, there can be no art.

Art requires reason. Reason is not secondary to art – because art is a pre-eminent work of Design. It’s a deliberate use of reason, along with intuition – to communicate meaning.

You can’t have meaning (purpose or value) without design. That’s the conscious use of reason to communicate beauty in art.

Thanks and I’m a bit rushed right now. I will be following along reading-trying to get a scope on how people think and develop points…

 

[reggieM]

I have done none of that, as you will see if you actually read what I wrote. I’m only advocating that reason has a limited use, as brilliant and overarching tool as it is. I’m not attacking reason by any means.

Gaber – I have taken some time to read your posts on other threads CAF, and it’s obvious that I misunderstood. I’ve dealt with people who share your mental framework for decades in my life - family members, school-mates, work associates. I’m embarrassed now that I wasted so much time.

My apologies to other readers on this thread. I assumed that it was worth taking some time with Gaber and it’s obviously not the case. Just one look at the quote above should be enough: “I’m not attacking reason by any means” – he says.

I’ve read some of Gaber’s posts on other threads promoting sexual sins and other such things – attacking the teaching of the Church on many matters, pretty much continually.

Ok – it’s clearly not worth the time and it adds no value to the topic – so I’m not going to pursue it further.

 

[Gaber]

I see a kind gentleman who has gotten lost in some serious errors. We are taught to try to help one another. So, your confusion is a problem for me. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – yes, I am to the degree that I have the chance to help.

I appreciate your good intentions. but you have failed to point out that I am confused, only that my interpretation of doctrine is different. Those are two different matters. And I have been in your shoes doctrinally, and you won’t try mine although they are already yours. You just haven’t looked yet.

You do not.

So aside from your inability to asses what state I’m in, whether it is the one you name or not, at least you admit it exists. But I’m not trying to convince you or anyone of a state by the name you call it, only of the possibility of experiencing awareness in its purity. So I ask you again: Are you aware?

You do not possess the Divine Vision. Again, you struggle to admit that. As for being “other than the ordinary” – on the contrary, I can show you people who have abused psychedelic drugs who say the same thing you do. Your religious attitude is run-of-the-mill New Age liberalism. So, the fact that you want to establish yourself as “not ordinary” is merely more proof that there’s a problem. And this is what we’ve been saying repeatedly – you’ve set yourself above everyone else. But I can see no basis at all for you to do that.

I do not know what you mean by “the Divine Vision,” as you likely haven’t it to speak from to say what it is. And I am not suggesting the contents of some induced state brought on by whatever means. I’m simply talking about awareness as such. And I despise “run of the mill new age liberalism.” And I am rather ordinary, save that I know something experientially about the nature of awareness which you can know as well if you do the work, I’m sure. Why do you continue to make what I’m saying into something it isn’t? Is that the only way you can avoid admitting that you are aware? I’m not talking about something weird or outre here, just what we use as humans to experience the world. Is that such a big deal? How can I set myself above anyone when what I’m pointing to is what we all have in common? Where is your logic?

Sure – and psychedelic drugs can radically change your mind also. Big deal.

And maybe that works, too. I don’t know. but again it is not what I’m pointing to, which is closer to you that the nose on your face, so close that you just don’t see it.

You’ve given no evidence at all that you have a more comprensive understanding of nature than anyone else. In fact, you have not even understood the topic until only recently – the fact that you’re learning is good. But I think it’s ground for humility rather than more continual praise of your own intellectual powers.

I don’t need to give evidence of what you already are: aware. The comprehension I am talikng about is knowledge of your own awareness. I can’t do that for you or anyone or prove it for you any more than I can go to NYC and say that you’ve been there when you haven’t. You have to take the steps. you not taking them doesn’t disprove my not having been there, right?

That’s a good point, and I appreciate your use of terms that we understand. Yes, if you had a deeper understanding of all of reality, then this would provide a deeper theological insight. It’s up to you to show that you have it. Thus far, we know you do not possess the unitive Vision. Now – what do you possess? What evidence of understanding do we find from you? Continued assertions about your own powers? Constant repetition of a single concept that has no evidential support in your own life?

I have encouraged you to take the steps that would lead you to understand my terminology, and you won’t even read the material I’ve indicated, even the one from the staunch Catholic. So how does my invitation to step through an open door to a new experience and vocabulary make me wrong because of your refusal to do it, or even get to a point where you can intellectually make comment on it, something which you have dismally failed to do? You even misunderstand the idea of repetition as I use it.

You’ve made these facile comments dozens of times. Cite the exact teaching within the Christian tradition, for a start. Refer to some interpretations of that teaching outside of your own opinion. That’s how scholarship works. That’s how theology works. Only then can we start evaluating your claims. We don’t invent our own theology – it comes from the data of revelation.

How is it facile to provide book titles from within and without the Faith that explicate what I’m talking about. I have provided reference to an initial introduction and repeat them here:
The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object~Franklin Merrell-Wolff
The Crown Jewel of Discrimination~Adi Sankara
The Experience of No Self? or The Path to No Self~Benadette Roberts

Unless you’re going to claim that you have a new revelation of some kind, you have to refer to what is in books. That is something else you’ve disparaged as “book learning”.

Yes, I have, in the sense that intellectual understanding is distinct from experiential understanding, a point I’ve repeatedly repeated. The taste of a cookie is radically different that reading recipe about it. Yes? Being in a warm swimming pool paddling around is radically different from reading a manual on swimming, yes? Drinking a glass of cold water on a hot day is different from from looking at one with a parched mouth and thinking about drinking, yes? So, as well, is the experience of awareness without an object, or sans contents. That is all that I’'m saying, and that having that experience informs your perceptions and the way you use reason about it. So if you haven’t done tht, you are neither qualified to say it can’t be done, or that it is some spiritual state it isn’t, or any other thing about it. It isn’t even a religious matter. It is just what it is: you without thoughts about what you think.

(continued)

 

[Gaber]

(continued)

Let’s start with “a true understanding of God and nature”.
In the same way that I am aware of what I’m writing to you.
Consciousness.
They are simultaneous.

In the sense that without awareness you don’t have thoughts,understanding, yes. But you can have awareness without its contents. And awareness itself is relative to objects. Consciousness is not.

Belief is an indivisible component of awareness. Belief will pass away when we possess the Vision.

Exactly. Why delay?

It’s always about you, Gaber. As I explained. You ask me to think about your own confused understanding and actually try to guess why you do things – then you get offended when I explain why you’re so confused.

How is pointing to an experience of what we all intrinsically are (aware) about me solely? It is no more that then it is about you. It is about a fundamental aspect of existance as a human which includes bothof us. Why do you try to put that off on me as you are using it to defend your preconceptions from the too obvious?

You need to take the focus off of yourself for a while – ok?

That is what I’ve been attempting all along by encouraging you to see what’s behind all of our discursive thinking. You have made it about me as a defensive maneuver to avoid looking at yourself.

It lines up with the claims you make about yourself.

The hell it does. You are kidding, right? Am I a prophet if you forget that your glasses are on your forehead and I point that out? Stop being silly. It doesn’t become you.

You haven’t stated or explained that. I don’t think you’re even aware of what you’re saying. How can you talk about a higher “non ordinary” awareness when you can’t even remember what you’ve done or haven’t done?

Well, ReggieM, it is better to discover some things for yourself than to be told an answer that you can dismiss intellectually. Vamos a ver. It has greater staying power, you might say, because there is preparation and a setting for receiving.

You mention the Great Commandment (now) but that’s more of the cafeteria Catholicism that we’re all very familiar with. You give no support, evidence or reference for this. It’s just a phrase that you pick out and assert – and is therefore meaningless. You could deny the Great Commandment in the very same breath and it would mean the same.

That would be fine if we were talking strictly about Catholcism. But I’m talking about the nature of the awareness that has Catholcism, or anything as its contents. So, once again, are you aware?

You have to explain things – not just assert them.

That is great, except that understanding comes with doing, not thinking about. unless you are thinking about what you have done. we’re back to the cookie, and the water.

This is yet another contradiction since you talk about all other topics including your own, supposed comprehensive awareness of reality. There’s a reason why you don’t refer to God - or to Christ.

Yes, of course there is. I stated it. Both are far greater than simple quoting of doctrine will reveal.

I’ll use your words – can you judge my soul and my relationship with God?

No, of course not. But I can tell from your language that you have no clue of what I speak of or we’d be having an entirely different kind of chat.

That is just sophistry as I see it. You directly contradict the teachings of the Church. In your more candid, less formal moments you admit that freely with a smile and joke. You do not accept the teaching of the Church. You do not want to live by the moral teaching that the Church offers – at the very least, to be a participating member of the Catholic community and worship God through the Eucharist each Sunday.

No, I don’t go to church, it is too painful. And that is because what I see does not contradict the teachings of the Church. It is kind of like the one thing that GK Chesterton said that was true: “It isn’t that Christianity doesn’t work; it’s just that no one’s tried it yet.” Close, I think to his actual words. And why do you imply that the Church is the sole purveyor of morality? I know atheist who are far more moral, imo, than many many churchgoers.

A famous question asked to Christ just before He was condemned to death.
How do you think Christ would answer that?

He was Silent. And for a blessed good reason, as far as I can tell.

Interesting way to deal with the question. But finally – yes, it’s true. You do not possess the Vision. You’re in the dark therefore, to whatever extent.

Can you see how hard it was for you to admit that?

Not hard to admit at all. That vision is not a possession.

I’m a Catholic and I speak and understand within the Catholic tradition. You, however, reject the tradition so you can make things mean whatever you want. But you’re on a Catholic list so it’s probably best to use our understanding when possible.

I can’t reject that tradition. It’s kind of in my blood, I have spoken on the same grounds as you do more times and on more occasions than I care to attempt to count. And I used that understanding that I had then until it sufficed no longer, and then I saw that it had much deeper meaning.

Yes, of course. This is a trivial point that built up your whole self-mythos around. This is basic Catholicism. We agree it is the end, and we agree that you have not achieved it.
So, you’re a man in need of help on that path.

I am honored that you have expended so much effort in attempting to do that. Your action will serve you well.

Much more than “no clue” I know you have rejected the Catholic community and the Eucharist, therefore – and you do not possess the Divine Vision, by your own admission. You do not possess Unity either, as understood from the Catholic perspective. So, I know quite a bit already. You haven’t been upfront about your moral views at all, but thus far, we just have the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment. Can I assume that you’re pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion? Do you deny the infalliblity of the Pope and the Immaculate Conception? Better yet, why not just tell me.
I have to ask because you have nothing I can reference except your own subjective opinion.

As I said: those are not possession. That you relegate them to such is telling. And I am sure that by “Catholic perspective,” I’m quite sure that you mean “your personal understanding to the extent of your kind and degree of insight into what you think is its meaning.” Yes?

The Great Commandment and the Golden Rule in its different forms together cover every situation. If you delve into the reason for those two, it can be discovered why. What do you think that might be?

 

[reggieM]

No, I don’t go to church, it is too painful. And that is because what I see does not contradict the teachings of the Church.

It might be a good idea, in the interest of transparency and basic honesty – that you be a little more upfront and open about your views.

I wish the best for you, Gaber – spiritually and otherwise – and I hope you’ve found some benefit in this exchange either in writing or reading.

 

[reggieM]

The validity of the power of reason is directly relevant to this thread and to the teaching of Jesus who constantly used it to justify his statements. He appealed to the beauty of nature to demonstrate that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures:

We see this in the Fathers of the Church also …

“There is no one so uncivilized, and of such a crude disposition, that, raising his eyes to heaven, he does not understand from the very magnitude of the objects from their motion, arrangement, constancy, usefulness, beauty, and temperament, although he knows not by the providence of what god all this visible universe is governed, that there is some providence, and that that which exists with wonderful method must have been prepared by some greater intelligence.” Lactantius

 

[tonyrey]

Theology and Sanity!There is an excellent book with that title (now online) by Frank Sheed who used to speak for the Catholic Evidence Guild:

questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3740560

It is clearly written and reflects the views of orthodox Catholic philosophers on this forum.

 

[tonyrey]

The validity of the power of reason is directly relevant to this thread and to the teaching of Jesus who constantly used it to justify his statements. He appealed to the beauty of nature to demonstrate that God is a loving Father who cares for all His creatures.

Thanks for that source, Reggie. You inspired me to dip into a book of texts from the Philokalia and I found this by St Anthony:

1. The world is maintained through God’s providence and there is no place which this providence does not touch. Providence is the self-fulfilling Word of God, the Giver of form to the substance constituting this world, the Architect and Artist of all that is. It is utterly impossible for matter to assume beautifully ordered form without the sagacious power of the Word, Which is the image, mind, wisdom and providence of God.

livingorthodoxfaith.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/170-texts-on-saintly-life-by-st-anthony.html

 

[reggieM]

Theology and Sanity!There is an excellent book with that title (now online) by Frank Sheed who used to speak for the Catholic Evidence Guild:

questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3740560

It is clearly written and reflects the views of orthodox Catholic philosophers on this forum.

Thanks for that recommendation – and a place where we can read the entire text. I’ve heard of Frank Sheed before and also the Catholic Evidence Guild which was an organization that started in England (I think) to teach the Catholic faith to the general public – right? Maybe like an early version of CAF.

A paragraph from the book …

I have said that my concern is with the intellect rather than
with the will: this not because the intellect matters more in
religion than the will, but because it does matter and tends to
be neglected, and the neglect is bad. I realize that salvation de-
pends directly upon the will. We are saved or damned according
to what we love. If we love God, we shall ultimately get God:
we shall be saved. If we love self in preference to God then we
shall get self apart from God: we shall be damned. But though
in our relation to God the intellect does not matter as much as
the will (and indeed depends for its health upon the will), it
does matter, and as I have said, it is too much neglected – to the
great misfortune of the will, for we can never attain a maximum
love of God with only a minimum knowledge of God.

Exploring and understanding the Design Argument gives us greater knowledge of God – not only that He exists, but that He has communicated Himself to us through nature and the universe.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for that source, Reggie. You inspired me to dip into a book of texts from the Philokalia and I found this by St Anthony:

It is utterly impossible for matter to assume beautifully ordered form without the sagacious power of the Word, Which is the image, mind, wisdom and providence of God.

The beautifully ordered forms that we observe are evidence of Design – which is evidence of Providence, because the forms were purposely developed and are also maintained through time. That maintenance or preservation of the beautiful order is evidence of providence.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

An animal say a fox will not & cannot reason out… there is no God.

 

[Gaber]

Not to mention the inherent absurdity of arguing against reason!
An imploding enterprise if ever there was one!

I will attempt to state it again, without succumbing to the temptation that indicates a need to get Mr; Rodgers about it: I am not arguing against reason as such; that is absurd. I am pointing out that it has an excellent application as far as it goes, but there is more. Y’all seem to agree with that and then relegate my position back to a straw man of contrariness that doesn’t exist by making the idea of reason as a limited tool appear to be denial of it altogether. Does that work for you? I mean, how reasonable it that contrariness, if reason is your life buoy?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I will attempt to state it again, without succumbing to the temptation that indicates a need to get Mr; Rodgers about it: I am not arguing against reason as such; that is absurd. I am pointing out that it has an excellent application as far as it goes, but there is more. Y’all seem to agree with that and then relegate my position back to a straw man of contrariness that doesn’t exist by making the idea of reason as a limited tool appear to be denial of it altogether. Does that work for you? I mean, how reasonable it that contrariness, if reason is your life buoy?

With all this debating aside from this thread and unknown to myself I think I goofed with my earlier post quoting your entry so retracting. …

How do you know reason is not itself a system ? You seem to assume by limiting the word… just curious

Also was curious what the things were in the Catholic Church that you mentioned needed to be contradicted.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I will attempt to state it again, without succumbing to the temptation that indicates a need to get Mr; Rodgers about it: I am not arguing against reason as such; that is absurd. I am pointing out that it has an excellent application as far as it goes, but there is more. Y’all seem to agree with that and then relegate my position back to a straw man of contrariness that doesn’t exist by making the idea of reason as a limited tool appear to be denial of it altogether. Does that work for you? I mean, how reasonable it that contrariness, if reason is your life buoy?

You give no coherent explanation of how reason is being abused in this case and you offer no alternative perspective. It’s almost like you’re saying “Reason is fine, so long as you don’t use it.” Your conversations run in circles because you are stuck on this whole spiel about “awareness” (which, apparently, everyone here but you is lacking) without ever indicating how this invalidates the notion of design. Any “answer” you have proffered has been some convoluted way of saying nothing at all.