Mary_Gail_36
New member
What happened to make you leave and lose faith? Just honestly curious.
- Status
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Lot commited sin. So did David, he had his friend bumped off, so he could seduce the wife. The brothers of Joseph, sold him into slavery because they were jealous of a coat. Prior to that, they killed off an entire town to protest their sister’s rape.
Couldn’t the moral of the stories be that God trusts us stupid sheep to do obey him, and we disobey?
Don’t we all disobey at some point? Doesn’t God offer us countless opportunities for redemption? Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that?
In the New Testament, didn’t Jesus take on our sins and suffer for us?
If everyone was perfect, we wouldn’t need a savior.
.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m stating clearly that you misunderstood the scripture passage. It does not support the conclusion you assert. You are simply wrong.
The Church understands and teaches truth from scripture. What you are doing is twisting that passage out of context to suggest that it means most people will go to Hell. That’s not the point of the scripture passage. The point is that it is easy to fall prey to the sins of the world that will lead one to Hell. It does not follow that most people will ultimately end in Hell… especially in light of the gospel message that sins can be forgiven, that we can be placed back into right relationship with God as a result of Christ’s sacrifice.
You really need to spend more time reading the bible and less time parsing it for passages that you can quote out of context.
God loves you, and He became a man and died for your sins, even though you don’t presently believe in Him. He does not want you to end up in Hell. He wants you to freely choose to be with Him in Heaven. That’s why He warns us about the ease by which we can become ensnared in sin. If He did not care for us, He would not have warned us about the peril.
Peace,
-Robert
P
phantasm
Guest
One day, but not today.
It took about 6 months to slowly walk away from Catholicism and surprisingly, only a couple of months to accept that God most likely does not exist.
What’s fascinating to me, is that Jesus himself said it was better to be hot or cold, than to be luke warm. I am deffinately cold and what gets me, is that I know for a fact that the Catholic Church’s are filled with luke warm believers, who don’t get any flak from the clergy, the Bishops, the Pope or the extremely devout Catholics that frequent this board.
People like me, the ice cold Atheists, are treated with a deep disdain. Meanwhile, the lukewarm believers slumber in the pews!
How many average North American Catholics would even spend 10 minutes on a Catholic forum? ( I know the honest answer)
I get treated rather poorly, but I can guarantee, that the attention would be better served in the Catholics own backyard.
P
phantasm
Guest
The Church, made up of men, simply interprets the scriptures as they see fit.
So, when Jesus was suggesting that most people will not enter through the narrow gate ( heaven) he really meant, most people will enter through the narrow gate ( heaven).
Ok, sure.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
You just said something I agree with. Better to be hor or cold than lukewarm. At least you are consistent at that, God love you.
Peace,
-Robert
P.S. I’m trying real hard to be charitable with you. We’re all just human after all.
P
phantasm
Guest
We don’t need perfection, but we need people to do the right things. For that, we don’t need a blood sacrifice. Even if we did need saving, we certainly don’t require a blood sacrifice from an immortal God.
Lot, did a very, very wrong thing. Yet, he is a Biblical hero.
When God told Abraham to kill his son, Abraham should have looked God square in the eye and told him a strong, resounding NO.
Instead, Abraham plotted to slaughter his own child. Yay, another Biblical hero.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
The Church teaches the meaning of a single passage of scripture in its proper context, and in unity with what the rest of the the scriptures teach. God was not playing a numbers game. He was urging His disciples to take His path, not the path of the world.
Peace,
-Robert
P
phantasm
Guest
I concede this point, it is true that this is what the Church and pretty much most ( for all I know) Protestant denominations teach.
J
josie_L
Guest
**The fact that you think you could suffer what Jesus suffered (for all humanity) is RIDICULOUS. You forget my friend that Jesus was also man and so felt every whip, punch, fall, thorn, nail, failing heartbeat and struggling breath in an excruciating manner. If you think you could endure this everyday, than by all means begin with now. **
**And that “zygote” you speak of has its own unique DNA, it is its own unique individual, Science has concluded that that zygote is a human.
Your arguments thus far are more emotionally-driven than rational. You may want to argue your stance in a less petulant manner.**
J
josie_L
Guest
By devout Roman Catholic what do you mean?
G
Gertabelle
Guest
I’m a recovering Catholic.
I think your missing the point entirely.
It’s a** humorous term ** ****to express how someone is in the process of cleansing themselves from their Roman Catholic indoctrination.
I would think that their are very few people who aim to be taken seriously when they claim that they’re recovering Catholics.
Yeah, I used to be a recovering Catholic as well. And I was all about “cleansing myself” of my “indoctrination.” I showed my separation from the Church by mocking everything Catholic, and for good measure, everything Christian. And I mocked those who were not yet in recovery.
Thank God I recovered from that and found my way back home to His Heart
Gertie (the grace-sustained graduate student)
J
josie_L
Guest
Your interpretation of that scripture is completely off-base and quite frankly absurd when you think of all that Jesus has done and continues to do in peoples lives. That you lack the sense to see this is quite sad. You are determined to focus so closely on a detail of your own making while ignoring the whole picture.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
I’m sure you weren’t a “fake Christian” if you say so. I was raised Catholic, attended 12 years of Catholic school, and spent two years in a Benedictine monastery. I, too, was a devout Catholic. And like you, it didn’t take long to leave the Church, and shortly after that to be agnostic, and eventually an atheist. And like you, I would never have considered myself a “fake Christian” when I was a practicing Catholic.
Having left the Catholic Church, I had so much freedom I had never known. It was amazing. I felt like I was awakening to my own power and strength and mind.
Fourteen years later, it was that same power, strength, and mind, and the work I had done in Landmark Education and the use of my intellect that brought me back to the Church. Go figure.
Phatasm, you have to live your life with integrity. Rather than talk about how many luke-warm Catholics are in the pews, you should simply focus on your own path and not worry about others. If you don’t believe in God, you should not call yourself a theist – end of story.
But if you ever do want to come back to the Church, you should do it with your whole heart, and strength, and intellect – take responsibility for your choices, rather than blaming us awful hypocrites and sinners for being too horrible to associate with
You’re right – I’m a hypocrite, I’m a liar, I’m stupid, I’m not at all what I say I’m supposed to be. Thanks for pointing that out!
God bless you!
Gertie
C
chris_molter
Guest
Sounds like you still haven’t completely cleansed yourself of your indoctrination. There IS no basis for an objective “right” or “wrong” in atheism.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Yeah, I used to be a recovering Catholic as well. And I was all about “cleansing myself” of my “indoctrination.” I showed my separation from the Church by mocking everything Catholic, and for good measure, everything Christian. And I mocked those who were not yet in recovery.
Thank God I recovered from that and found my way back home to His Heart
Gertie (the grace-sustained graduate student)
You just said something I agree with. Better to be hor or cold than lukewarm. At least you are consistent at that, God love you.
Peace,
-Robert
P.S. I’m trying real hard to be charitable with you. We’re all just human after all.
You guys have all shared your hearts in your posts
Phantasm, thanks for your reply. Now we’re open for some rational dialog! Lukewarm Catholics, do you really know that I and others are not praying for them, talking to them? You make judgements on all by your limited experience. You can’t see into every life in my parish. The Bishops are not doing anything? We had Archbishop Burke. Look how he was villified by Catholics and the media. But he held strong. Archbishop Chaput, the Pope, they all speak out. You are right, some are too meek. Forgive them. Pray for them.
“Catholics” like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are embarrassements to our Holy Catholic faith. I pray for them daily.
We can only change ourselves.
Lord, help us open our eyes to the many blessing your rain down on us!
D
Detales
Guest
Wow. I can’t believe that after stumbling on this thread I read or scanned all 196 posts up to when I started this. I may have the beginning of Excedrin headache #…uh, I lose count, lol !
First, I was very grateful for the few islands of sanity (SpritMeadow and Gertabele in particular) that allowed me to more easily hop over the turbulent waters of emotionality that surged almost everywhere. I also had to avoid the jagged rocks of sarcasm and the screaming and yelling of assorted sirens. Not attractive. I read everything that didn’t appear redundant off the top and scanned the rest out of respect for the posters and of my own interest in the phenomenon of faith. We believe many things, some of them religious, and it interests me why and how we change. Few really do, funda-mentally.
In general, the postings and protestations of the Catholic “apologists” on this thread made me more grateful than before that I stopped attending. I was a well catechized (won a large trophy in a statewide “knowledge of Catholic theology” competition) and was very zealously into proselytizing my friends whom I thought were doomed to the eternal fire. I now ask their forgiveness, though at the time I didn’t know any better.
I empathize with those who label themselves “recovering Catholics.” In my own case, I called myself a recovering “Cath-aholic.” I did so because the symptoms of religious faith are, as are those of any belief system, remarkably similar to any other addiction. The difference is that the substance being abused is not an ingested chemical, but thought. Well, a physiologist will tell you it is really the same thing, really, except that it is socially acceptable to have thought addictions (habits) that are not overtly and immediately harmful. In other words, believers use “thought-ahol” in the place of street or prescription drugs. Some of the jags on here are reflective of that, Catholic or otherwise.
I was exceptionally fortunate. My awareness was involuntarily blasted out of its addictive thought pattern by a minor trauma. Nevertheless, it gave me the remarkable moment of chance that was a momentary derailment of my belief train/“train” of thought. I don’t mean here religious thought specifically, but my entire concept of who and what “I am.” I guess that, in short hand, that would be a good way to put it. I discovered that who and what we think we are is exactly that: a concept we think, and by necessity of default, identify with. It is this identification with a limited thought field that constitutes our person. (look up the etymology of “person.” It is very revelatory in this regard.)
Anyway, since one of our most basic things to do is to survive, and we have this particular culture stuff ingrained into that sense as children, we equate it with our survival, physical or eternal. That is well and good. We need to do something like that to live at all. Good job, everyone who’s made ti so far!
But if you get your thoughts knocked out of you, and are still awake, then what? Most of you won’t even have a clue what I mean. But believe me, you can be awake and have no thoughts. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. etc. When this happens, you realize that “I” has an entirely different referential value than what we refer to as “me.” “Me” is person. It is constituted of everything you *think *you are, including atheist, Catholic, Pocomaiac, or Jain, American, Greenie, dummy, smarty, sister, husband, pro, poor, successful or not, anything. It matters not a whit. It is all *contents *superimposed on that feeling of being “I” which is the substrate to even the possibility of any thought. That “I” is the “carrier wave” of the modulation you think of as “you” or “me.” Modulation: "you"or “me.” No modulation: “I”
That knowledge puts the entire question of religious belief on a different footing. For me, I had to go elsewhere after a strong effort to find some resolution or explanation for my new found understanding within the Church. There was, it seemed at the time, no viable answer within the canon, though that was later somewhat modified.
At any rate, I had to re-order my life on the basis of this new and incontrovertible data. I was supremely fortunate in that I found a living proponent of a system that,* for me *from my experiential standpoint, covered all the bases, including eventually a renewed understanding of thoughts “Catholic,” and before that, of interpretations of the Bible and other scriptures I had looked at.
Nevertheless, it was a painful struggle to re-asses my entire experience, especially being alone for so long in my understanding. But it could easily be likened to going “cold turkey” for everything thought, including my now problematic religious faith. Hence, “recovering Catha-holic.” As an example of from what, just go to the threads on morality. I just got back from there and, and for instance, the twisted, contorted, excruciatingly painful faith engendered none-sense some of those poor people are suffering is criminal. And that is from someone who is a celibate bachelor who gets “offers” regularly. But the scenario on the morals thread and some others is reflective of the unnecessary convolutions that the faith requires in nearly all areas. That is why they, we, say “recovering Catholic” or “recovering Catha-holic.”
First, I was very grateful for the few islands of sanity (SpritMeadow and Gertabele in particular) that allowed me to more easily hop over the turbulent waters of emotionality that surged almost everywhere. I also had to avoid the jagged rocks of sarcasm and the screaming and yelling of assorted sirens. Not attractive. I read everything that didn’t appear redundant off the top and scanned the rest out of respect for the posters and of my own interest in the phenomenon of faith. We believe many things, some of them religious, and it interests me why and how we change. Few really do, funda-mentally.
In general, the postings and protestations of the Catholic “apologists” on this thread made me more grateful than before that I stopped attending. I was a well catechized (won a large trophy in a statewide “knowledge of Catholic theology” competition) and was very zealously into proselytizing my friends whom I thought were doomed to the eternal fire. I now ask their forgiveness, though at the time I didn’t know any better.
I empathize with those who label themselves “recovering Catholics.” In my own case, I called myself a recovering “Cath-aholic.” I did so because the symptoms of religious faith are, as are those of any belief system, remarkably similar to any other addiction. The difference is that the substance being abused is not an ingested chemical, but thought. Well, a physiologist will tell you it is really the same thing, really, except that it is socially acceptable to have thought addictions (habits) that are not overtly and immediately harmful. In other words, believers use “thought-ahol” in the place of street or prescription drugs. Some of the jags on here are reflective of that, Catholic or otherwise.
I was exceptionally fortunate. My awareness was involuntarily blasted out of its addictive thought pattern by a minor trauma. Nevertheless, it gave me the remarkable moment of chance that was a momentary derailment of my belief train/“train” of thought. I don’t mean here religious thought specifically, but my entire concept of who and what “I am.” I guess that, in short hand, that would be a good way to put it. I discovered that who and what we think we are is exactly that: a concept we think, and by necessity of default, identify with. It is this identification with a limited thought field that constitutes our person. (look up the etymology of “person.” It is very revelatory in this regard.)
Anyway, since one of our most basic things to do is to survive, and we have this particular culture stuff ingrained into that sense as children, we equate it with our survival, physical or eternal. That is well and good. We need to do something like that to live at all. Good job, everyone who’s made ti so far!
But if you get your thoughts knocked out of you, and are still awake, then what? Most of you won’t even have a clue what I mean. But believe me, you can be awake and have no thoughts. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. etc. When this happens, you realize that “I” has an entirely different referential value than what we refer to as “me.” “Me” is person. It is constituted of everything you *think *you are, including atheist, Catholic, Pocomaiac, or Jain, American, Greenie, dummy, smarty, sister, husband, pro, poor, successful or not, anything. It matters not a whit. It is all *contents *superimposed on that feeling of being “I” which is the substrate to even the possibility of any thought. That “I” is the “carrier wave” of the modulation you think of as “you” or “me.” Modulation: "you"or “me.” No modulation: “I”
That knowledge puts the entire question of religious belief on a different footing. For me, I had to go elsewhere after a strong effort to find some resolution or explanation for my new found understanding within the Church. There was, it seemed at the time, no viable answer within the canon, though that was later somewhat modified.
At any rate, I had to re-order my life on the basis of this new and incontrovertible data. I was supremely fortunate in that I found a living proponent of a system that,* for me *from my experiential standpoint, covered all the bases, including eventually a renewed understanding of thoughts “Catholic,” and before that, of interpretations of the Bible and other scriptures I had looked at.
Nevertheless, it was a painful struggle to re-asses my entire experience, especially being alone for so long in my understanding. But it could easily be likened to going “cold turkey” for everything thought, including my now problematic religious faith. Hence, “recovering Catha-holic.” As an example of from what, just go to the threads on morality. I just got back from there and, and for instance, the twisted, contorted, excruciatingly painful faith engendered none-sense some of those poor people are suffering is criminal. And that is from someone who is a celibate bachelor who gets “offers” regularly. But the scenario on the morals thread and some others is reflective of the unnecessary convolutions that the faith requires in nearly all areas. That is why they, we, say “recovering Catholic” or “recovering Catha-holic.”
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Detales;4988488]Wow. I can’t believe that after stumbling on this thread I read or scanned all 196 posts up to when I started this. I may have the beginning of Excedrin headache #…uh, I lose count, lol !
It is for the little oasis of rationality that I visit here as well! LOL. And your’s was definitely one of them.
I think I know of what you speak. In fact, one can travel across a dozen different faith systems, Christian and not and find the same explanation. From the Desert Fathers and Mothers through the mystics, onto the Yogas and Buddha, we find that if we go deeply enough, we lose ourselves (that ego generated personality) and find our Oneness with the Eternal God.
Quieting the mind to silence is the key as you well know. The psalmists understood. “Be still, and know that i am God.” and other references to finding God in the silence. St. Anthony of the Desert spoke of it, ST. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Buddha, Gandhi, the Majarishi Yoga, the list is endless. They all speak of the same thing.
Might I recommend “Into the Silent Land: A guide to the Christian Practice of Contemplation” by Martin Laird, OSA. It is perhaps the best guide to the practice I’ve ever read.
Thanks for a wonderful post. You made my day!
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Ronald Rollheiser’s book “The Shattered Lantern” is also a great read on the subject of contemplative prayer - from a Catholic/John of the Cross/Theresa of Avila point of view. In the end, the doctrines and dogmas of the church are the guideposts and traffic signals on the road to heaven. The sacraments are the gas stations and roadside diners. They are there for the safety of all the drivers, or for fuel and food to complete the journey. But they are not an end to themselves. God is the end of the journey.
Peace,
-Robert
D
Detales
Guest
Thanks, SpritMeadow,
I also, after over forty five years of inquiry and practice, now have a library of books by such as Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, Merrell-Wolf, Toni Roberson, Nisargadatta, Byron Katie, and my own beloved Mentor, KG Mills. I have stayed away from christainst mystics for the reason that most of them yet attribute their experiences to what appears to me to be an anthropomorphic god. But I have an increasing interest in St Theresa, and others, including Aquinas who stopped writing when he realized during a mass that “It is all as straw.” I suspect that he woke up at that moment. I feel for him; I can’t imagine what he was faced with as a result of that. But I will look into the list you recommended with interst.
As for meditation, I have practiced some form of that for about fifty years. I was even a checker in Maharishi’s organization. That form made a great and sudden change in my behavior, as it gave me the peace of mind to allow a few stewing matters to settle into resolution. I also had fun with it at a lecture on cardiac health. I volunteered to be the test subject in an EKG demo, and the tech got mad at me because by the time she hooked me up I had reduced my heart rate to way below normal.
My own Mentor recommended two ways that differ from that, one of them the way of counting breaths in sets of ten up to fifty, then seventy, with no external aids to keep track. Lose track, start again, lol!
Anyway, it is delightful to meet you on here again, and I look forward to more of your level headed and open hearted posts.
I also, after over forty five years of inquiry and practice, now have a library of books by such as Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, Merrell-Wolf, Toni Roberson, Nisargadatta, Byron Katie, and my own beloved Mentor, KG Mills. I have stayed away from christainst mystics for the reason that most of them yet attribute their experiences to what appears to me to be an anthropomorphic god. But I have an increasing interest in St Theresa, and others, including Aquinas who stopped writing when he realized during a mass that “It is all as straw.” I suspect that he woke up at that moment. I feel for him; I can’t imagine what he was faced with as a result of that. But I will look into the list you recommended with interst.
As for meditation, I have practiced some form of that for about fifty years. I was even a checker in Maharishi’s organization. That form made a great and sudden change in my behavior, as it gave me the peace of mind to allow a few stewing matters to settle into resolution. I also had fun with it at a lecture on cardiac health. I volunteered to be the test subject in an EKG demo, and the tech got mad at me because by the time she hooked me up I had reduced my heart rate to way below normal.
My own Mentor recommended two ways that differ from that, one of them the way of counting breaths in sets of ten up to fifty, then seventy, with no external aids to keep track. Lose track, start again, lol!
Anyway, it is delightful to meet you on here again, and I look forward to more of your level headed and open hearted posts.
- Status