J
josie_L
Guest
I hope you explore that one Truth. . . . in which you were born into.Oh, goody, a hair parser, lol!
OK, there can be/IS only One. That is Truth as I see it.
- Status
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Detales;
Thanks for the thoughtful post. It seems that your ultimate conclusion is that we - being limited human beings - have no way of knowing with absolute certainty what is true and what is not true in matters of faith, that we instead must âexamine all pertinent dataâ from an âimpartialâ standpoint and make an educated guess. Your comments in response to Gâs statements seems to imply that his conclusions are not correct because you, having attempted to become as informed and impartial as you can, do not agree with his contrary conclusion that the Catholic Church is where the fullness of revealed Truth can be found. Yet, you seem to concede you cannot know for certain whether G is right or wrong. Even if he âjumpedâ to His conclusion (and Iâm not saying that he did) he may have âjumpedâ correctly - and you seem to concede that you cannot know the ultimate answer.
I think that your perspective here speaks of your own âpartialityâ to at least some degree. I admit I do not know you and G, so I am stating this based only on my own limited and concededly âpartialâ standpoint in reviewing the above post. However, it does not take much parsing to see that where Gâs opinions and your opinions on the matter of doctrine part ways you seem to be assuming that your position is the more (likely to be?) correct one. The fact that you concede we are all entitled to believe what we choose to believe is not much of a conciliation to G (and to me as a fellow Catholic) as that implies you are saying some of us are simply allowed to be âmore wrongâ than others. Iâm not sure if you intended to convey this, but in my reading of your thoughtful post, your partiality did seem to shine through around the edges. Perhaps our attempts at âimpartialityâ are not as successful as we think they are, as our own actions are seen through whichever pair of âglassesâ we put on.
Another thought upon finishing your post is that Iâm not entirely sure that, with respect to revealed religion, it is best to attempt âalienâ âimpartialityâ while reviewing the facts. Rather, I think that evaluation of the facts is more fruitful when it takes place accompanied by prayer and openness to Godâs love. If God is truth, and I think we all believe He is, then we should not attempt an impartial study apart from Him, but should instead be reaching out to Him just as our frail human faculties reach out to the best physical and intellectual evidence He has revealed. And since most of us start out in one faith tradition or another, we are - of necessity - going to approach God through those lenses. Is it not better to acknowledge and deal with the lenses weâre wearing, than to try to pretend weâre not wearing them at all? Perhaps this is what you meant? Iâm not sure. But you got me thinking about it, and for that I appreciated your post.
Peace,
-Robert
D
Detales
Guest
J, no one is* not *born into Truth. We are trained or learn to see and experience Truth differently, âthrough a glass, darkly.â Is there more than one God? No. So doesnât even the ability to deny God comes from the same Source as the abiltity to adore?
R, Iâm saying that Intellect & emotions are navigational attributues useful in realtive terms. G is very rightârelative to Catholic assumptions. He didnât need to âjump.â He accepted, and within that framework of Catholicism, he is âright.â I know this, I was a Catholic, & according to reports not mine, a very good one. But if those assumptions were absolute, we could not have disagreements. So no, we cannot, using limited and relative tools, Know Ultimate Truth that way, though we might know âaboutâ it.
What Iâm saying pertinent to impartiality is that if we know this, our limitation, and know that we necessarily adopt ways of coping and thriving in local systems, even if they reflect a wider tradition, those local systems may be worth examining, especially if one is dealing with such an important matter as salvation. In other words, some people get to a point where they ask âHow and why do I believe the way I do, and is it the only way, and if not what other ways are there, and how do I determine their realtive, and if possible, universal values?â (I wrote a lot more on the nature of our relative abilities, but saved it to another location, as it was too detailed for this short space.)
Now this assesment of what is Universal cannot be a matter of a popularity contest. Nor can it be a matter of assuming that because the contents of my awareness, say (1,2,3,âŚNx10to theX) is the contents of my awareness, that that set equals, one for one, the reality of the world. Even a cursory examination of oneâs experience shows that this is not so. If it was, we would have no need to learn, and any set of contents would suffice to easily navigate any part of the world of experience.
And yes, regarding that world experience, actually some of us* are *more young in these matters than others. Do you know anyone who arrived as an infant into the Church, or any society, who did not need to be instructed in its ways? Some, to my knowledge, even take graduate courses, even in religion. ( I supplied a teacher of one of those with his standard text, a veritable handbook on religious sanity that I have as a standard in my library. Having been trained by Jesuits, and almost becoming one himself, he was very glad to have it and has used it with great success.)
So what can this Universal Standard be? It must be a measure symbolic of God, useable as an abstraction of God within our limited intellectual/emotional navigation system. Here is the one and only place whre faith might come usefully into the picture. We must believe as if we Know that a God IS, if it is our aim to discover the nature of our relationship with God. But anything other than our test cannot be attributed to God. We cannot attribute God with any limited attribute if we are to make useful empirical discoveries in this quest.
So what test can apply? The best of several useful ones I have found so far is asking âIs this Real?â I emphatically do *not *mean by that to ask âDoes this exist?â because anything we percieve exists. It exists as a perception in our awareness that has some relavance to a world we hold in âcommon,â or to our private thought world. Ultimately, these can be seen to be the same, despite the inabillity of the English language in its popular form to properly accomodate the needs of that kind of consideration. But in this sense, the word âReal,â capitalized with that intent, dentotes âThat which does not change.â
By That test, the sole component of experience that is significantly in alignment with God is the feeling of âI,â very clearly distinguished from the ordinary assesment that âIâ refers to âme.â It appears to refer to âmeâ until by disciplin, prayer, contemplation, meditation, or trauma, this distinction is experienced as an absolute and irrevcable discontinuity in the usual sense of âself.â So it is along this âaxisâ of âIâ that useful inquiry can actually be made.
That discontinuity is what is refered to as âesotericâ experience and is a different kind of knowledge (lens) qualitatively than faith or intellectual knowledge. Those are deemed âexotericâ and are pertinent to the world as we ordinarily experience it. In these two ways of understanding, the Church is, to the best of my ability to discern, very primarily and publicly exoteric, relying on scripture, tradition, and dogma for an exoteric understanding of the mysteries of Incarnation, Resurrection, salvation, the fall of the Angels and of Men, etc. That most certainly holds true of the very greatest majority of religionists and atheists on here.
There is, as well, an esoteric understanding available for the nature of these events. It is hinted at by such as St. Theresa of Avila and others like her, and certainly by Padre Pio and his spiritual kin. They have my deepest and most profound admiration and respect, and they are very worth of study and emulation. And it may be such a discontinuity as of which I speak that may have caused St. Thomas Aquinas to exclaim that all that he had written was âas straw.â I can tell you from experience, that such an event in oneâs life is an empirical equivalent of taking the famous red pill in *the Matrix *, if you have seen that.
So, my advocating impartiality is from the standpoint of looking into other systems of perception that more deeply expand oneâs understanding, on the basis of esoteric knolwedge, of the fundamental teachings of their Church, however they might see those. For most, that will never be a question. It was forced on me, and I was exceptioanlly fortunate, as such an insight as I had is very dangerous in it possible consequences. As one man said âThe search for Reality is *the most *dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your worldâ. Of course he meant the world of exoteric understanding.
So, you see, you are right. I am partial. But it is to an inclusivity of understanding that I, myself, have not found forthcoming from the Church as I knew it. Now I see that what I feel is the actuallity of the question *is *hidden in the teachings of the Church. But I strongly emphasise âhidden,â and have come to believe that such as have triumphed, as did St Theresa, are thus blessed because of their persistance primarily in delving inward in a specific and extraordianry way, and only secondarily due to believing theistic or traditional argumentations. I also feel that their devotion was such that they would have reached their extacies regardless of what their birth religion was, as their mode of experiencing the Divine knows no religion, as far as I can tell, having found their insights repeated in unlikely elswheres and doctrins.
R, Iâm saying that Intellect & emotions are navigational attributues useful in realtive terms. G is very rightârelative to Catholic assumptions. He didnât need to âjump.â He accepted, and within that framework of Catholicism, he is âright.â I know this, I was a Catholic, & according to reports not mine, a very good one. But if those assumptions were absolute, we could not have disagreements. So no, we cannot, using limited and relative tools, Know Ultimate Truth that way, though we might know âaboutâ it.
What Iâm saying pertinent to impartiality is that if we know this, our limitation, and know that we necessarily adopt ways of coping and thriving in local systems, even if they reflect a wider tradition, those local systems may be worth examining, especially if one is dealing with such an important matter as salvation. In other words, some people get to a point where they ask âHow and why do I believe the way I do, and is it the only way, and if not what other ways are there, and how do I determine their realtive, and if possible, universal values?â (I wrote a lot more on the nature of our relative abilities, but saved it to another location, as it was too detailed for this short space.)
Now this assesment of what is Universal cannot be a matter of a popularity contest. Nor can it be a matter of assuming that because the contents of my awareness, say (1,2,3,âŚNx10to theX) is the contents of my awareness, that that set equals, one for one, the reality of the world. Even a cursory examination of oneâs experience shows that this is not so. If it was, we would have no need to learn, and any set of contents would suffice to easily navigate any part of the world of experience.
And yes, regarding that world experience, actually some of us* are *more young in these matters than others. Do you know anyone who arrived as an infant into the Church, or any society, who did not need to be instructed in its ways? Some, to my knowledge, even take graduate courses, even in religion. ( I supplied a teacher of one of those with his standard text, a veritable handbook on religious sanity that I have as a standard in my library. Having been trained by Jesuits, and almost becoming one himself, he was very glad to have it and has used it with great success.)
So what can this Universal Standard be? It must be a measure symbolic of God, useable as an abstraction of God within our limited intellectual/emotional navigation system. Here is the one and only place whre faith might come usefully into the picture. We must believe as if we Know that a God IS, if it is our aim to discover the nature of our relationship with God. But anything other than our test cannot be attributed to God. We cannot attribute God with any limited attribute if we are to make useful empirical discoveries in this quest.
So what test can apply? The best of several useful ones I have found so far is asking âIs this Real?â I emphatically do *not *mean by that to ask âDoes this exist?â because anything we percieve exists. It exists as a perception in our awareness that has some relavance to a world we hold in âcommon,â or to our private thought world. Ultimately, these can be seen to be the same, despite the inabillity of the English language in its popular form to properly accomodate the needs of that kind of consideration. But in this sense, the word âReal,â capitalized with that intent, dentotes âThat which does not change.â
By That test, the sole component of experience that is significantly in alignment with God is the feeling of âI,â very clearly distinguished from the ordinary assesment that âIâ refers to âme.â It appears to refer to âmeâ until by disciplin, prayer, contemplation, meditation, or trauma, this distinction is experienced as an absolute and irrevcable discontinuity in the usual sense of âself.â So it is along this âaxisâ of âIâ that useful inquiry can actually be made.
That discontinuity is what is refered to as âesotericâ experience and is a different kind of knowledge (lens) qualitatively than faith or intellectual knowledge. Those are deemed âexotericâ and are pertinent to the world as we ordinarily experience it. In these two ways of understanding, the Church is, to the best of my ability to discern, very primarily and publicly exoteric, relying on scripture, tradition, and dogma for an exoteric understanding of the mysteries of Incarnation, Resurrection, salvation, the fall of the Angels and of Men, etc. That most certainly holds true of the very greatest majority of religionists and atheists on here.
There is, as well, an esoteric understanding available for the nature of these events. It is hinted at by such as St. Theresa of Avila and others like her, and certainly by Padre Pio and his spiritual kin. They have my deepest and most profound admiration and respect, and they are very worth of study and emulation. And it may be such a discontinuity as of which I speak that may have caused St. Thomas Aquinas to exclaim that all that he had written was âas straw.â I can tell you from experience, that such an event in oneâs life is an empirical equivalent of taking the famous red pill in *the Matrix *, if you have seen that.
So, my advocating impartiality is from the standpoint of looking into other systems of perception that more deeply expand oneâs understanding, on the basis of esoteric knolwedge, of the fundamental teachings of their Church, however they might see those. For most, that will never be a question. It was forced on me, and I was exceptioanlly fortunate, as such an insight as I had is very dangerous in it possible consequences. As one man said âThe search for Reality is *the most *dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your worldâ. Of course he meant the world of exoteric understanding.
So, you see, you are right. I am partial. But it is to an inclusivity of understanding that I, myself, have not found forthcoming from the Church as I knew it. Now I see that what I feel is the actuallity of the question *is *hidden in the teachings of the Church. But I strongly emphasise âhidden,â and have come to believe that such as have triumphed, as did St Theresa, are thus blessed because of their persistance primarily in delving inward in a specific and extraordianry way, and only secondarily due to believing theistic or traditional argumentations. I also feel that their devotion was such that they would have reached their extacies regardless of what their birth religion was, as their mode of experiencing the Divine knows no religion, as far as I can tell, having found their insights repeated in unlikely elswheres and doctrins.
A
annem
Guest
Detales, as a Buddhist, and someone who believes in pantheism, you have argued many times that you followed the âdangerousâ path.
I still donât understand how leaving Catholicism, which is difficult, and has a lot of pesky beliefs in right and wrong, and becoming a Buddhist, is dangerous. Easy, perhaps, but dangerous???
May God grant you a million miracles, Annem
D
distracted
Guest
dangerous because you can lose HeavenâŚI still donât understand how leaving Catholicism, which is difficult, and has a lot of pesky beliefs in right and wrong, and becoming a Buddhist, is dangerous. Easy, perhaps, but dangerous???
Annem
D
distracted
Guest
there is only one truth when it comes to morality - God - (the author thereof).
you are right⌠believing in any given thing does not make it so. I can believe there is no such thing as gravity and jump out a 10 story building to prove it⌠Obviously, my beliefs about gravity would NOT be proven
uch: .I doubt anyone here @ CAF (or anywhere else) thinks that just because s/he believes something, that alone makes it true⌠This comment you have made seems rather insulting to postersâ intelligenceâŚ
dontâ know what claim you refer to⌠so canât comment⌠but if i did⌠i probably would be able to tell whether it is official Catholic belief or not since i have studied my faith and history of the ChurchâŚ
all truth is not found in Scripture⌠Even so, scrpture does support (& speak of) the Church⌠St. Mt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15 etcâŚ
didnât read the comments you are referring to so canât say too much⌠but i can say that ***most Catholics do NOT âdenigrateâ other faiths⌠It is other faiths that usually denigrate Catholic beliefs/practices⌠***
D
Detales
Guest
Annem, I am not a Buddhist.
D
Detales
Guest
Distracted: âŚor gain it.
D
distracted
Guest
i think i am in the wrong postâŚ
but ummm⌠since Iâm here⌠just wondering⌠for one⌠why you call it a thoughtful post (Detales)âŚ
Anyway⌠the thought occurs to me that we humans, fallible and messed up as we are, CAN know what is absolute truth about morality/faith⌠because, for one thing, we are born with a conscience⌠and our choices either enhance our consciences or ⌠destroy it⌠Anyway⌠people know right from wrong whether they were raised in a Christian home or not⌠True, it is easier to know Christ if one is raised in such a home⌠but anyway⌠People also know truth from that best of all teachers - Experience⌠We feel good when we do good and bad when we do badâŚ
People can believe that aborton is a good thing ⌠Choice (such an American-sounding thing
of course) ⌠but when they see a picture of an aborted child⌠Well, if they can still believe abortion should be allowed in a civilized socieyt after seeing that⌠They are, objectively speaking, going against truth (the conscience)⌠There is, in this case, no need to read a 1000 books⌠or study anything⌠Christ is not only for the theologically eruditeâŚAs it has been said, âa picture paints a 1000 wordsâ
D
distracted
Guest
A
annem
Guest
Oh, sorryâŚso what are you? An advaitist ascended master? Sufi? Hindu?
May God grant you a million miracles, Annem
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Are you saying that he is ârightâ or that he is merely âconsistentâ with those âassumptionsâ that that Catholics believe to be divinely revealed doctrine and that you seem to now question based upon personal experiences? Because I have a problem with the way in which you deploy the term ârightâ as if that were a moral position that depended upon oneâs personal environment.
I think this conclusion is a fair assessment. But the underlying question youâre skirting is whether or not the Catholic faith (or any other claimed revealed religion) provides the tools sufficient to know enough about Ultimate Truth that it becomes worthy of itâs claim? By your comments I take it that your solution is to review every religion for what knowledge it may reveal about Ultimate Truth - but that no one religion holds all of what can be known, correct?
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that itâs not a popularity contest, nor is it merely an internal search. But it depends upon the evidence of Divine revelation to our world, whether that would be the Bible or the Quran or some other claimed text, or the claims of authority made by an individual or a group of individuals or an organization. And part of our ascertainment of truth comes in the first instance of accepting these claims to a divine source. Intellect and reason play their roles in making these decisions of course. But ultimately how in your opinion do you know that the fingerprints of God are on any claimed source without some degree of faith. Isnât a leap of faith required regardless of the direction of the jump?
Iâm not sure if that alone is a workable test. A Muslim, a Catholic and a Jew all accept this truth and can reasonably support their own doctrines in good faith because they accept (and reject) claims to authority and revelation. And if their decisions were based entirely upon preconception (the cultures in which they were educated and loved) then how does one explain conversion and reconversion? And if they were based entirely upon an objective standard, then all reasoning men and women who approach the issue in good faith would be ending up in a single faith - be it Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Buddhist or some other.
But this test seems to imply that knowledge of God results in a lack (or loss) of self. Again, this test of yours seems to be incorporating (for better or worse) an Eastern religious tradition rather than a Christian-centered tradition. Whereas Eastern philosophies seek an emptiness, western christianity is about the individualâs relationship with God. The person is not to be cast away, but is recognized as uniquely and infinitely valuable. So, why is it that the search for Truth would require that we turn our backs on self. Would it not be more appropriate to seek Truth by developing that relationship between self and God?
I do not think that you will find God hidden among the esoteric knowledge of other religions. I think that you will find merely the differing results of the same search you are currently embarking upon - but not knowledge regarding Ultimate Truth.
I think the âsuccessâ of St. Theresa and the other saints of the Church comes not from delving inward, but in surrendering to God. And by surrendering I mean a submission of intact and created will to the will of the God that is the source of that creation - not an obliteration. St. Theresa had a mystical relationship with God not because she looked inward hard enough, but because she surrendered all that she was to the will of God - not as an attempt to reach oblivion, but out of her acknowledgment of that one-to-one relationship
Peace,
-Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
It seemed to me tht Detales was honestly struggling with the question and his insight was different than most Iâve seen. Iâm not saying I agree with him, but as I noted - he made me think. I guess thatâs why I called it thoughtful.i think i am in the wrong postâŚ
just wondering⌠for one⌠why you call it a thoughtful post (Detales)âŚ
I agree that the law of God is written on our hearts - the natural law. And I think the existence of God can be a matter of moral certainty. And I agree that our consciences (properly formed) can be a good indicator of when our actions are in conformity with His will for us - i.e. good or evil. However, I think questions like âIs Jesus Godâ and âIs God Triuneâ and What is Godâs plan for us? depend upon Divine revelation that - ultimately - cannot be âknownâ by conscience alone. Iâm not saying thatâs a good reason for rejecting these truths. Iâm saying that one comes to believe these ultimate Truths by another way⌠ultimately, that way requires faith.
Peace,
-Robert
I agree with your pro-life position on abortion. However, I think the natural law (though shall not kill) clearly applies to the taking of an innocent childâs life. People are blinded to this natural law, which is violated by an abortion, for a number of reasons that are unrelated to the topic I was trying to address in my earlier post.
Peace,
-Robert
D
Detales
Guest
Hi Robert,
âRightâ relative to God is absolute. "Rightâ relative to existance is necessarily relative, because we experience existance as relative. This is why it may be ârightâ to teach a toddler one way, a high school freshman another, and a graduate student yet another. In any case, we pick up things in our first seven years, especially, that, because of our circumstances, are necessarily âright.â
If I was dropped into an Asian farming family, or a South American rain forest culture at 10yo, my training would not be ârightâ for that situation. Neither might my morals. So G is ârightâ and âconsistentâ within the Catholic culture. But Catholics, as far as I can tell, distribute their ârightnessâ not only over their own culture, but over the entirety of Creation, meaning, on Earth, global history. Though that standpoint is valid and taken as true within Catholic culture, it is not neccesaily so for everyone else, either by ignorance, choice, or scholastic or other inquiry. Certainly for the population before the Gospels were popularized to the extent they were, the Catholic perspective was not even an option. And of course, the Church necessarily meant different things even to itâs own members as it developed a history, that history being a matter of scholastic debate. In addition, as children learn to be Catholic, their understanding changes. And even Aquinas, after all that astoundingly wonderful exposition, claimed in the end that it was all âas straw.â Given a non-relative revelation such as he might have had, this is an understandable assesment. But in either case, he also was âright,â in two different ways, G, as far as I can tell, in only one.
Morality is rooted in the way of survival. In your terms, relative to the Church, it is an ultimate survival of the Soul factor. So in Catholic culture, morality, as far as I can see, is relative to an exoteric understanding of a teaching relative to salvation by the definition of the Church. This is useful in that it gives many a framework for behavior and interaction. Many religions offer this, as well as many philosophys and ethical codes. They all relate in one way or another to a basic underlying Reality. But because of the way we are âwired,â each of those groups of moral practitioners tends to claim that theirs is âThe One True Way.â It has been as a offering of a way to understand this phenomenon that I have recommended certain readin matter that has been used in comparative religion studies with great success. That is because though we tend to agree generally about how most things ought to be studied, we make the study of how we aquire, use, and maintain our religious beliefs a taboo subject. Thisis necessary because if we question it, we are risking, within a religious context of unerstanding, we are risking all. We are risking our ultimate survival. So our way of aquiring religion and its source are left largely unquestioned.
Yet if we abstract patterns from religions, we find that they have been consistent througout history, even to the many saviors who were the son of a god born of a virgin, were wise in their youth, taught, performed miracles including water into wine, calming waves, raising the dead, etc., and who suffered an ignominious death, rose from the grave, and ascended. I thought that there were only sixteen of those, but some claim as many a thirty-odd. I donât know. Iâve restricted my inquiry mostly to the pattern of the phenomenon as applied to transformational experiences, as well as at most three of those saviors. But that was after I had my own experience and needed an explanation that had integrity with my own discovery. As you can imagine, that discovery had to be of some great significance in order for me to take the risk of ânot surviving.â Remember, I was perhaps a far more militant Roman Catholic than many on here who are now questioning my standpoint.
The reason there is such reactivity to what I say is perhaps this. Whereas I have discovered that the pattern of the Jesus story, (whom, by the way, despite contrary evidence I believe was an historic figure,) is extremely releavant to a form of transformation available here and now for all the children of God, the Church has mistakenly cast Jesus into a one time wonder. He was a one time Wonder, for Himself. But he was an exemplar, who due to the conditions of His time and place was forced into a mode of Self reference. This is esoterically correct, but exoterically disaterous in that it distorts the path of transformation for followers if it is left in Jesus and not done for oneself, as Paul indicated. Please note, though it will be exceptionall difficult for anyone to do from an RC standpoint, that Paul, as well as the gospels, can have an entirely different esoteric meaning than the exoteric one promulgated by the Church.
Certainly these can exist side by side. I think that that is even necessary. Perhaps very necessary. But I do think that mature Catholics need to look at St Thomas, St. Theresa of Avila, and many others, and see that there is an underlying mystic, or esoteric experience, that brings the gosples to life in a way that catechism is utterly incapable of. These mystic ways are functionally identical to the similar experiences in other religious cultures, but necessarily limited to that cultureâs interpretations. A case in point is the OBE and NDE. NDE experiencers, eg, of any age, culture, religion, political affiliation, educational level, genetic background, whatever, all report some variant of the same seven parts of the NDE. Yet when it comes to the part where they meet âThe Being of Transcendent Brilliance and Loveâ an interesting thing happens. Christianists call the Being âJesus.â Buddhists call the Being âBuddha.â Muslims call the Being âAllah.â Atheists and others call it some variant of âA Being of infinite compassion and Love.â Practitoners of other faiths in history called it by the name of their particular savior. Personally, I agree with Danion Brinkeyâs exegesis of this phenomenon, as it fits the Perennial Philosophy best. But in any case, this kind of thing tends to veryfy for me that there is a larger Underlying Reality which was the actual foundation of the Church, but because of lack of experience in the esoteric dimension was formulated into a cannon whose adherents now claim to be âright.â Because this cannon was formulated on such an ommission, the actuality of the alleged founderâs Real intent was cast into the catagory of heresy.
Thatâs the short answer to your first paragraph. I will get back to the others. I like your questions.
âRightâ relative to God is absolute. "Rightâ relative to existance is necessarily relative, because we experience existance as relative. This is why it may be ârightâ to teach a toddler one way, a high school freshman another, and a graduate student yet another. In any case, we pick up things in our first seven years, especially, that, because of our circumstances, are necessarily âright.â
If I was dropped into an Asian farming family, or a South American rain forest culture at 10yo, my training would not be ârightâ for that situation. Neither might my morals. So G is ârightâ and âconsistentâ within the Catholic culture. But Catholics, as far as I can tell, distribute their ârightnessâ not only over their own culture, but over the entirety of Creation, meaning, on Earth, global history. Though that standpoint is valid and taken as true within Catholic culture, it is not neccesaily so for everyone else, either by ignorance, choice, or scholastic or other inquiry. Certainly for the population before the Gospels were popularized to the extent they were, the Catholic perspective was not even an option. And of course, the Church necessarily meant different things even to itâs own members as it developed a history, that history being a matter of scholastic debate. In addition, as children learn to be Catholic, their understanding changes. And even Aquinas, after all that astoundingly wonderful exposition, claimed in the end that it was all âas straw.â Given a non-relative revelation such as he might have had, this is an understandable assesment. But in either case, he also was âright,â in two different ways, G, as far as I can tell, in only one.
Morality is rooted in the way of survival. In your terms, relative to the Church, it is an ultimate survival of the Soul factor. So in Catholic culture, morality, as far as I can see, is relative to an exoteric understanding of a teaching relative to salvation by the definition of the Church. This is useful in that it gives many a framework for behavior and interaction. Many religions offer this, as well as many philosophys and ethical codes. They all relate in one way or another to a basic underlying Reality. But because of the way we are âwired,â each of those groups of moral practitioners tends to claim that theirs is âThe One True Way.â It has been as a offering of a way to understand this phenomenon that I have recommended certain readin matter that has been used in comparative religion studies with great success. That is because though we tend to agree generally about how most things ought to be studied, we make the study of how we aquire, use, and maintain our religious beliefs a taboo subject. Thisis necessary because if we question it, we are risking, within a religious context of unerstanding, we are risking all. We are risking our ultimate survival. So our way of aquiring religion and its source are left largely unquestioned.
Yet if we abstract patterns from religions, we find that they have been consistent througout history, even to the many saviors who were the son of a god born of a virgin, were wise in their youth, taught, performed miracles including water into wine, calming waves, raising the dead, etc., and who suffered an ignominious death, rose from the grave, and ascended. I thought that there were only sixteen of those, but some claim as many a thirty-odd. I donât know. Iâve restricted my inquiry mostly to the pattern of the phenomenon as applied to transformational experiences, as well as at most three of those saviors. But that was after I had my own experience and needed an explanation that had integrity with my own discovery. As you can imagine, that discovery had to be of some great significance in order for me to take the risk of ânot surviving.â Remember, I was perhaps a far more militant Roman Catholic than many on here who are now questioning my standpoint.
The reason there is such reactivity to what I say is perhaps this. Whereas I have discovered that the pattern of the Jesus story, (whom, by the way, despite contrary evidence I believe was an historic figure,) is extremely releavant to a form of transformation available here and now for all the children of God, the Church has mistakenly cast Jesus into a one time wonder. He was a one time Wonder, for Himself. But he was an exemplar, who due to the conditions of His time and place was forced into a mode of Self reference. This is esoterically correct, but exoterically disaterous in that it distorts the path of transformation for followers if it is left in Jesus and not done for oneself, as Paul indicated. Please note, though it will be exceptionall difficult for anyone to do from an RC standpoint, that Paul, as well as the gospels, can have an entirely different esoteric meaning than the exoteric one promulgated by the Church.
Certainly these can exist side by side. I think that that is even necessary. Perhaps very necessary. But I do think that mature Catholics need to look at St Thomas, St. Theresa of Avila, and many others, and see that there is an underlying mystic, or esoteric experience, that brings the gosples to life in a way that catechism is utterly incapable of. These mystic ways are functionally identical to the similar experiences in other religious cultures, but necessarily limited to that cultureâs interpretations. A case in point is the OBE and NDE. NDE experiencers, eg, of any age, culture, religion, political affiliation, educational level, genetic background, whatever, all report some variant of the same seven parts of the NDE. Yet when it comes to the part where they meet âThe Being of Transcendent Brilliance and Loveâ an interesting thing happens. Christianists call the Being âJesus.â Buddhists call the Being âBuddha.â Muslims call the Being âAllah.â Atheists and others call it some variant of âA Being of infinite compassion and Love.â Practitoners of other faiths in history called it by the name of their particular savior. Personally, I agree with Danion Brinkeyâs exegesis of this phenomenon, as it fits the Perennial Philosophy best. But in any case, this kind of thing tends to veryfy for me that there is a larger Underlying Reality which was the actual foundation of the Church, but because of lack of experience in the esoteric dimension was formulated into a cannon whose adherents now claim to be âright.â Because this cannon was formulated on such an ommission, the actuality of the alleged founderâs Real intent was cast into the catagory of heresy.
Thatâs the short answer to your first paragraph. I will get back to the others. I like your questions.
G
grampben
Guest
Perhaps because sometimes people value what others have to say, even if one is in total disagreement. Itâs called being charitable.just wondering⌠for one⌠why you call it a thoughtful post (Detales)âŚ
A
annem
Guest
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Iâm not speaking of cultural affection, but of ârightâ in the manner of discussing doctrine. If you believe God is triune you are either wrong or right. There is no relativity there. If you believe baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ to give grace you are either right or wrong. There is no middle ground. In terms of morality, there are occasions when the line gets fuzzy, as in war or plane crashes in the Andes. But there are still absolutes on matters of morals and doctrine that are simply not subject to mutation. It is the human condition that bent and warped by such situations.
Gravity was not understood until fairly recent in our human development, but it was always the rule. In the same way, God has always been the same, but our understanding of him improved over the centuries that He slowly revealed Himself to humanity, culminating in the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurection of Jesus Christ. That fact that some people do not know (or accept) this revelation does not make it any more or less true. You are right to say that Catholics âdistributeâ their ârightnessâ ⌠but it is because that is what we believe we are called to do. The fact that a Catholic can look at a specific act and judge it from an objective standard as morally evil or good is the result of our application of the teachings that we beleive come directly from God. (Note, this ability to ascertain objective good and evil does not empower any Catholic to judge the souls of individuals. This we cannot do.) It does not follow that because someone disagrees with the Churchâs teaching that somehow there are two kinds of ârightâ conduct that are directly opposed. For example, abortion is either the deliberate killing of an innocent life - an objetively moral evil - or it is not. Based on what we believe God has revealed to us, we say with the assurance of faith that it is an objective evil. If our faith is misplaced, and there is nothing morally evil about killing an unborn baby in the womb, we are wrong. But we are not âwrongâ simply because someone disagrees with our reasoning. And by the same token, someone who disagrees with the Churchâs teaching on abortion is not ârightâ because they believe the contrary in good faith. Ultimately, the act is wrong or right and there is no middle ground⌠although in the context of subjecting individual experience there may be mitigating circumstances that reduce the effect of that action on a person⌠for example, if a 13 year old is forced by the soccer coach who molested her into having an abortion to cover up his statutory rape, we cannot know with certainty what the impact of her actions on her own salvation would be.
I disagree. To say that Catholic morality is basically a code of conduct by which we âWork our way to heavenâ out of the fear of Hell is to seriously misunderstand and denigrate the teaching of the Church. You should not be so quick to dismiss Catholic teachings underpinning the teaching on morality by simply titling it a âsurvivalistâ tool.
While there have been similarities, I do not think that all have been consistent. I think that there are many religions that try to wear the trappings of christianity, but none outside of Christianity offer the same eternal Family of God type of spiritual life that Christianity offers.
I agree. A person can read all about riding a bicycle but it is something altogether different to ride a bicycle. The Church does not relegate its members to reading about Christ. It urges the People of God to live their lives in Christ. to experience just the same sort of holiness that St. Theresa and St. John experienced. Not all are called to be mystics, but all are called to holiness. None are called to simply read about Christ.
As I noted above, God is not bound by the sacraments or the Church. So, to the extent NDEs occur to non-christians, this is not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. And even so, NDEs are very personal and subjective experiences that are not subject to verification. They may be nothing more than hallucinations. Or they may be real, but involve a subjective level of interpretation, thus the Muslim sees Allah while the Christian sees Jesus and the Jew sees the God of the Old testament. To the extent the phenomenon is what it purports to be ⌠a ânear deathâ experience, perhaps the mirror is not pulled entirely away and we still view eternity âdarklyâ and not as we will at the time of our âactual deathâ experience. Perhaps one must go beyond your analysis and ask why it is that a loving God would appear to a frightened and âalmostâ dying person as the Deity they relate to best. Does this mean there is not necessarily more than 1 God. Does it mean that there are several heavens, and the one we go to is determined by our faith? Does it mean God is who we choose him/her to be? Ultimately, I think NDEs raise many questions but provide little answers, and do not provide proof for or against any one set of beliefs.
Yours is an interesting hypothesis ⌠and one that has been raised before. I disagree with your conclusions and think that while you may sincerely believe this to be so you have a long way to go to establish that this is indeed so. And while I can agree on some level that there is certainly a larger Underlying Reality that will be revealed in the afterlife - this belief is not inconsistent with my Catholic faith.
That was short?
D
Detales
Guest
Yes, actually it was very short. And as noted, it was a reply to only the first paragraph of the last posting it is derived from. I take inquiries such as yours very seriously and take sometimes as much as two hours to consider and craft a sincere reply. It only appears long, because if were were in agreement in the first place, we would either not be having this kind of a conversation, or it would carry an entierly different tone. Or we could carry on for book length postings of exposition of the Wonders of God and His Creation from that perspective. I am even replying to you, though, only because of an obvious sense of sincerity and conviction that your postings convey. It feels to me, that unlike many on here, we might be friends even though we differ in some basic convictions. That is clearly not the case with some other posters.
I am currently racking my brain trying to find a way that we might converse on this, as it seems to me that right now some points of possible agreement might be defeated by our mutually different understandings of the word âbelief.â I have even considered some form of thought experiment. Such an experiment that might succeed is difficult to conceive of. I say this because, remember, I was exactly in your shoes of belief, perhaps more so, untill I was empirically knocked out of them. I have emphatically not arrived where I am by dint of anyoneâs missionary efforts! I would have argued exactly your line, even more intensly, perhaps, up until I had that completely life altering experience, that after a series of some rather blissful premonitions.
I am now left with the idea of circles, akin to the idea of the greater containing the lesser. I say this, without specifically addressing our differences for now: what I learned of myself and my faith from this experience explains Catholicsim very clearly, easily, contextually, and experientially. In fact, it re-invigorates my understanding of the faith. However, by the same token, Catholicism as commonly understood, only invites me to deny my experience and its necessary conclussions and does not account for an adequate exegesis except by labeling it. That is neither logically, intuitively, intellectually, nor experientially sufficient for me, given my rather dramatic insight.
On the other hand, as I have stated here and eleswhere, I have not only no expectation that my way is the way for anyone in particular, but also that I feel that it would be dangerous for many. I do feel, though, as well, that since there is a very large body of work dating from as much as five millenia ago, that has been consistent in its way, and has had many proponents who have arrived at the identical empirical explanation independently through time, space, culture, and religious affilitation, that what I have come to be given some modicum of respect. In fact, my particular reading is very consitent with the words of Jesus and other scriptures despite a radically* different understanding.
Yet I am not here to convert you or anyone else to my way. In fact, in my understanding, such a âconversionâ is impossible, because even a clear intellectual understanding of it is still but a shadow. That is why I keep refering to Aquinasâ declaration about his writings, that they were, after his insight, âas straw.â It is just a fact. It is not an argument, or a desire to convince, or any such thing. I can present nothing for anyone to convert to. I can only present what my experieince and understanding have led me to, if that is what someone wishes to hear.
So, with that understanding, Iâd be glad to continue this, by private message even, if that might exempt uninterested parties from this discussion. But unless we come to some common practical understanding of âbelief.â that is likely not to happen. I am not interested in stirring things up in terms of inciting passionate defenses or expositions of faith, no matter how sincere, wonderful, miraculous, documented, or completely adequate for the poster. I am, though, willling to answer sincere questions about how I see things. My understanding, as I have tried to convey, is not by way of argu-âmentation.â Also, I do not need to be educated in the Catholic way, as I have very
Bindar Doondat
*The etymology of âradicalâ is useful here.
I am currently racking my brain trying to find a way that we might converse on this, as it seems to me that right now some points of possible agreement might be defeated by our mutually different understandings of the word âbelief.â I have even considered some form of thought experiment. Such an experiment that might succeed is difficult to conceive of. I say this because, remember, I was exactly in your shoes of belief, perhaps more so, untill I was empirically knocked out of them. I have emphatically not arrived where I am by dint of anyoneâs missionary efforts! I would have argued exactly your line, even more intensly, perhaps, up until I had that completely life altering experience, that after a series of some rather blissful premonitions.
I am now left with the idea of circles, akin to the idea of the greater containing the lesser. I say this, without specifically addressing our differences for now: what I learned of myself and my faith from this experience explains Catholicsim very clearly, easily, contextually, and experientially. In fact, it re-invigorates my understanding of the faith. However, by the same token, Catholicism as commonly understood, only invites me to deny my experience and its necessary conclussions and does not account for an adequate exegesis except by labeling it. That is neither logically, intuitively, intellectually, nor experientially sufficient for me, given my rather dramatic insight.
On the other hand, as I have stated here and eleswhere, I have not only no expectation that my way is the way for anyone in particular, but also that I feel that it would be dangerous for many. I do feel, though, as well, that since there is a very large body of work dating from as much as five millenia ago, that has been consistent in its way, and has had many proponents who have arrived at the identical empirical explanation independently through time, space, culture, and religious affilitation, that what I have come to be given some modicum of respect. In fact, my particular reading is very consitent with the words of Jesus and other scriptures despite a radically* different understanding.
Yet I am not here to convert you or anyone else to my way. In fact, in my understanding, such a âconversionâ is impossible, because even a clear intellectual understanding of it is still but a shadow. That is why I keep refering to Aquinasâ declaration about his writings, that they were, after his insight, âas straw.â It is just a fact. It is not an argument, or a desire to convince, or any such thing. I can present nothing for anyone to convert to. I can only present what my experieince and understanding have led me to, if that is what someone wishes to hear.
So, with that understanding, Iâd be glad to continue this, by private message even, if that might exempt uninterested parties from this discussion. But unless we come to some common practical understanding of âbelief.â that is likely not to happen. I am not interested in stirring things up in terms of inciting passionate defenses or expositions of faith, no matter how sincere, wonderful, miraculous, documented, or completely adequate for the poster. I am, though, willling to answer sincere questions about how I see things. My understanding, as I have tried to convey, is not by way of argu-âmentation.â Also, I do not need to be educated in the Catholic way, as I have very
Bindar Doondat
*The etymology of âradicalâ is useful here.
Z
zab
Guest
My father-in-law has a navy uniform like that. He is 84.
G
guanophore
Guest
I appreciate your exercise in perceptions.
What is missing here is Godâs revelation. See, what He has revealed about Himself to man is quite beyond our âknowledgeâ. The reason the Catholic Church holds the faith seh does, and interprets scriptures as she does, is that she learned from Christ. This is not something that comes from man,but from God.
I am not sure what is meant by âscriptures are in various ways questionableâ. This is not part of the Apostolic faith, and not a point I am willing to debate, I donât think. I espouse (yes, by my choice) that what Jesus revealed to the Church is the Truth, that the Scriptures are the Word of God,and are inspired, and inerrant.
It may be that the difference is that Catholics believe He has revealed that which He wants us to know to the Church.
I agree. But the Catholic Church has Godâs point of view.
Jesus interpretation is the most valid,for us. Of course there are others, but to the extent they depart from His, they are less and less valid.
You misunderstand me, Detales. I am not the authority that has anything to do with excommunication. The Church, to whom Jesus gave this authority, has determined what constitutes communion with the Teachings of Jesus. Those who reject them separate themselves from the unity that He built. I donât âexamine their casesâ. I just listen to the news.
No one can âpre-emptâ the decision of the heretic, schismatic, or excommunicant. They make their own choices. I do agree, however, that there are very few comparitive âreal Catholicsâ. The majority reject the teachings of the Church to a greater or lesser extent.
It is also true that it is our duty to try to share the truth with them, as well as those who are not baptized Catholic. I think expecting Jesus to be âproudâ is an anthropomorphism. This is our duty as servants of God, to witness that which has been revealed to us.
Is there something about this CAtholic Teaching you find offensive?
Well, we probably read the Scriptures differently, that is why I see it there and you may not. However, that is irrelevant, since theCatholic Church is not a âbible based churchâ.
- Status