"Required to believe". An odd concept?

[RobbyS]

It’s certainly true that mankind has seen fit to establish bodies of experts that compile knowledge for the benefit of everyone else. The main benefit is that, as you say, each person does not have to become an expert in every subject under the sun.

The chief difference with religion is that, unlike other fields, there’s no actual evidence that these “experts” are dealing with.

In every other field or endeavor, there’s a pretty well-established sense of who’s right because…well, the evidence is there to see. If someone puts out cookbooks with really awful dishes, then it won’t take long for that book to be at the bottom of the recommended list that all professional chefs compile.

If someone proposes a whacked out scientific theory, it’s not going to get published in the journal that actual scientists, with actual evidence, get published in.

Only in religion can people make claims that can’t be independently investigated and evaluated – simply because, in most cases, you have to accept their claims (or “open your heart” to these claims) in order to even begin investigating it.

Religion is the only field in which there really are no agreed-upon correct answers because it’s not a field – it’s a bunch of people investigating the contents of their imaginations and their oh-so-precious feelings.

Well, it depends on which definition of religion one follows. One derived on anthropology or sociology requires no truth claims. I doubt than any two anthropologists describe Buddhism exactly the same way. Ditto, two psychologists. Ditto, two historians.

 

[Light1111]

I understand your impulses here. First, I don’t think human language can be used to ultimately describe God. So to ascribe human attributes to God by saying He “likes” this or this makes Him “happy” or this makes Him “sad”, is to lower Him. The god’s of the Pantheon were merely exaggerated humanity with all the impulses of men writ large. I have trouble with God being characterized this way and figuring out what it means ultimately.

At the same time, it would seem necessary that an intelligent God who created everything would call for some sort of differentiation in metaphysical as well as physical things. Life is full of binaries,up/down, good/bad, thesis/antithesis etc. So there must be some organizing principle in the Godhead and all that He brings into existence. I can’t quite grasp the concept that all is in God and that everything is equal.

While I can’t understand the my-way-or-the-highway view of some in Christendom (and elsewhere), I also can’t understand the everything-is-correct concept either. I don’t “know” much actually. The mileage of others may vary. I appreciate your thoughts Light.

I appreciate your points as well, a priori! This has been a very thoughtful discussion!

One of your ideas here, about the ends of the spectrum, represents a difference in essential conceptions of God, and of all that is. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we do see this dichotomy spelled out time and again: black/white, good/bad, up/down.

In the metaphysical traditions, whether Eastern or Western in origin, one of the goals of meditation or deep prayer is to learn to overcome these dualities of the mind. For instance, many a spiritual master has encouraged his disciples to see that illness is the same thing as health. Illness exists at one end of the spectrum, and health, at the other. For the majority of our lives, most of exist somewhere in between the two ends. The “homework” is to find within yourself the recognition that both states of being are one in the same, simply taking various forms in their manifestations. But every illness contains the seeds of good health; just as all good health contains the kernels of illness. Transcending this duality is one of the goals of focused meditation or deep repose as one says prayers of gratitude to God.

It is believed by many of the great spiritual masters that there comes a time when the human mind is able to break free of the confines of duality, and see that there truly is no “black and white” or “good and bad,” but rather all things contain all other things. Nothing exists in isolation.

I agreed wholeheartedly when I was corrected earlier; indeed, we can’t relegate God to such basic emotional states as “sadness,” “happiness,” etc. Yet I do believe God created the Universe from His own internal thirst, His own desire to share with others. That is a part of the mystical creation story in Judaism. God was all; contained all; and He threw Himself out, in a bright burst of light, and fell upon all and sundry in a vast sprawl. In time, creation began moving, and we now witness the full Universe and this stunning planet, where life takes countless forms, and new life goes on blossoming day after day. In the mystical creation story of Judaism, God created all of this so He could share His deep love with us. He wished for others to be able to partake of the bounty He contained within Himself.

I find comfort and beauty in this story, and I do see God as desiring of our happiness, of our experience of joy – and the ultimate goal of such an experience would be the natural, genuine blooming of a deep, heartfelt gratitude toward our Lord. When He bears witness to our gratitude, we have come a long way indeed, in helping Him to feel that He has not toiled in vain. His desire to share with others has been both received, and heartily appreciated.

So in this mindframe or thought exercise, I do not see God as dwelling in the dualities of nature as we humans do. To God, there can be no “opposite ends of the spectrum,” limiting His complete view of All that Is. He would not see “sickness,” He would know the inherent health the sickness contains. He would have the grand view that permitted Him to see that what we might define as Evil, He knows to have roots in Good.

 

[4Horsemen]

I appreciate your points as well, a priori! This has been a very thoughtful discussion!

One of your ideas here, about the ends of the spectrum, represents a difference in essential conceptions of God, and of all that is. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we do see this dichotomy spelled out time and again: black/white, good/bad, up/down.

In the metaphysical traditions, whether Eastern or Western in origin, one of the goals of meditation or deep prayer is to learn to overcome these dualities of the mind. For instance, many a spiritual master has encouraged his disciples to see that illness is the same thing as health. Illness exists at one end of the spectrum, and health, at the other. For the majority of our lives, most of exist somewhere in between the two ends. The “homework” is to find within yourself the recognition that both states of being are one in the same, simply taking various forms in their manifestations. But every illness contains the seeds of good health; just as all good health contains the kernels of illness. Transcending this duality is one of the goals of focused meditation or deep repose as one says prayers of gratitude to God.

It is believed by many of the great spiritual masters that there comes a time when the human mind is able to break free of the confines of duality, and see that there truly is no “black and white” or “good and bad,” but rather all things contain all other things. Nothing exists in isolation.

I agreed wholeheartedly when I was corrected earlier; indeed, we can’t relegate God to such basic emotional states as “sadness,” “happiness,” etc. Yet I do believe God created the Universe from His own internal thirst, His own desire to share with others. That is a part of the mystical creation story in Judaism. God was all; contained all; and He threw Himself out, in a bright burst of light, and fell upon all and sundry in a vast sprawl. In time, creation began moving, and we now witness the full Universe and this stunning planet, where life takes countless forms, and new life goes on blossoming day after day. In the mystical creation story of Judaism, God created all of this so He could share His deep love with us. He wished for others to be able to partake of the bounty He contained within Himself.

I find comfort and beauty in this story, and I do see God as desiring of our happiness, of our experience of joy – and the ultimate goal of such an experience would be the natural, genuine blooming of a deep, heartfelt gratitude toward our Lord. When He bears witness to our gratitude, we have come a long way indeed, in helping Him to feel that He has not toiled in vain. His desire to share with others has been both received, and heartily appreciated.

So in this mindframe or thought exercise, I do not see God as dwelling in the dualities of nature as we humans do. To God, there can be no “opposite ends of the spectrum,” limiting His complete view of All that Is. He would not see “sickness,” He would know the inherent health the sickness contains. He would have the grand view that permitted Him to see that what we might define as Evil, He knows to have roots in Good.

It sounds like you believe in a personal God (if I may just break into the conversation to make a point), so presuming God is a person, He is personable, having the same qualities of “emotion” (as seen in the Bible stories) but is so far above “emotion” itself, that He is unaffected spiritually, you might say, unlike us. (I’m trying hard to find language to express what I mean. If God is personable, He wants to show us how personable He is, so He sent Jesus into the world to show how much He loves us and wants us to enjoy the happiness of heaven with Him. But to do that, Jesus shows us the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He delineates right from wrong, good from bad, darkness (evil) from light (goodness, righteousness, justice, etc. . .) He also cures the sick. When we follow His law (He loves us so much that He didn’t want us to mess up our lives, so He gave us a set of laws or Commandments), we are more like Him, and so He gives us even more. (Read the parable about the day laborers which seems unjust to us that the last man gets the same pay as the first having worked different hours. But our Lord is talking about the spiritual life).

 

[AntiTheist]

Truly, eye-witness evidence is often mistaken even though a witmess may believve s/he is correct.

Absolutely. And remember that with the gospels, we’re not dealing with eyewitness testimony. We’re dealing with the far less-reliable phenomenon of stories passed down through a cult that eventually got written down.

Seems like a pretty devastating critique of the gospels, doesn’t it? We don’t have eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and even if we did, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, as you note here and as the UFO example demonstrates.

So what’s your reponse to this devastating critique? Let’s all read it together and try to keep our mouths from hanging open at its ridiculousness:

However, Jesus told His apostles He would send the Holy Spirit, who would bring to mind all that He did and said.

Ok. So let’s all make sure we are on the same page. Your reason for thinking that the story is true is that the story itself says that a supernatural force will make sure that the authors get it right.

This is a circular argument because it begins from the premise that you’re trying to prove.

I’ll break it down for you. Your argument is running something like this:

1. Normally, testimonies are unreliable
2. However, testimonies are reliable if they come from a supernatural force that puts the events in the authors’ minds.
3. According to the Gospels, Jesus said he’d send the Holy Spirit to bring to mind everything that he did
4. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are reliable.

In order for (4) to be true, premise (3) has to be true – but premise (3) is rooted in the unspoken assumption that the Gospel accounts are reliable. You are, for all intents and purposes, saying “I know the Gospels are reliable because they say that they’re reliable, and we should trust what they say because we know that they’re reliable because they say so.”

It’s a circle. It’s logically invalid, and we can discount it before we even get to the fact that there are other glaring unsound elements in the syllogism (the unsupported premise [2], for example, and the unspoken assumption of the premises that the apostles assigned by tradition to the authorship of these texts actually were the authors of these texts).

Before you presume to lecture me on the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning – as if I’ve never heard of them, employed them, or taught them before – you might want to brush up your own application of deduction and your own ability to construct sound and valid syllogisms.

 

[Light1111]

It sounds like you believe in a personal God (if I may just break into the conversation to make a point), so presuming God is a person, He is personable, having the same qualities of “emotion” (as seen in the Bible stories) but is so far above “emotion” itself, that He is unaffected spiritually, you might say, unlike us. (I’m trying hard to find language to express what I mean. If God is personable, He wants to show us how personable He is, so He sent Jesus into the world to show how much He loves us and wants us to enjoy the happiness of heaven with Him. But to do that, Jesus shows us the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He delineates right from wrong, good from bad, darkness (evil) from light (goodness, righteousness, justice, etc. . .) He also cures the sick. When we follow His law (He loves us so much that He didn’t want us to mess up our lives, so He gave us a set of laws or Commandments), we are more like Him, and so He gives us even more. (Read the parable about the day laborers which seems unjust to us that the last man gets the same pay as the first having worked different hours. But our Lord is talking about the spiritual life).

I’m not sure what is meant, when one says “personal God.” I do not believe in a “personal God,” if what is meant is either that God is something unique and different for each of us, or that He Himself is person-like, or human. I believe God transcends our limitations, and the dualities of the human mind. That was the point I was trying to make – that God is above such conceptions as black/white, up/down, in/out. In the grand scheme, such words and concepts hold no meaning.

God is vast, eternal, and inseparable–indivisible. This lesson is taught over and over, yet we still have tendencies toward stating “this is that” and “that is this,” when all things come from God. Nothing in this Universe is not-God; He created all things. All things came from Him; all things go to Him; all things are Him. Whether up, down, in, out, black, white, left, right – God is all around us. We can’t separate Him from the things we witness; His hand is visible in all things.

 

[tskrobacz]

God is vast, eternal, and inseparable–indivisible. This lesson is taught over and over, yet we still have tendencies toward stating “this is that” and “that is this,” when all things come from God. Nothing in this Universe is not-God; He created all things. All things came from Him; all things go to Him; all things are Him. Whether up, down, in, out, black, white, left, right – God is all around us. We can’t separate Him from the things we witness; His hand is visible in all things.

Amen…as the mystics tell us - God is not IN existence, God IS existence itself.

 

[Light1111]

Amen! Or as my friend always tells her daughter: “It’s not that you have a soul – you are a soul.” What is the soul? The soul is God.

 

[4Horsemen]

Absolutely. And remember that with the gospels, we’re not dealing with eyewitness testimony. We’re dealing with the far less-reliable phenomenon of stories passed down through a cult that eventually got written down.

You’re wrong about the timing. It is now understood that the gospels were written, most likely, before 70 A.D. Read the following paragraph. I’ll add the link, so read about the reasoning concerning the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. which Jesus predicted that “no stone will be left upon stone.”

"Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ’s life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.’

carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

So let’s all make sure we are on the same page. Your reason for thinking that the story is true is that the story itself says that a supernatural force will make sure that the authors get it right.

This is a circular argument because it begins from the premise that you’re trying to prove.

I’ll break it down for you. Your argument is running something like this:

1. Normally, testimonies are unreliable
2. However, testimonies are reliable if they come from a supernatural force that puts the events in the authors’ minds.
3. According to the Gospels, Jesus said he’d send the Holy Spirit to bring to mind everything that he did
4. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are reliable.

In order for (4) to be true, premise (3) has to be true – but premise (3) is rooted in the unspoken assumption that the Gospel accounts are reliable. You are, for all intents and purposes, saying “I know the Gospels are reliable because they say that they’re reliable, and we should trust what they say because we know that they’re reliable because they say so.”

It’s a circle. It’s logically invalid, and we can discount it before we even get to the fact that there are other glaring unsound elements in the syllogism (the unsupported premise [2], for example, and the unspoken assumption of the premises that the apostles assigned by tradition to the authorship of these texts actually were the authors of these texts).
.

The way you have it set up is certainly circular. However, let’s consider it another way.

1. Testimonies can be reliable or unreliable.
2. If the souce is reliable, we can assume truthfulness.
3. Generally, the more reliable sources, whose testimony agrees, the higher the expectation of truthfulness.
4. In the case of the gospels, there are many reliable sources, whose testimony agrees, so the gospels are truthful.

(This leaves out the supernatural effect of the Holy Spirit, which may suit your mind-set better.) I could add:
4. In the case of the gospels, there are many reliable sources dependent upon the Holy Spirit, whose testimony agrees, so the gospels are truthful.

St. Paul speaks:
"He rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and . . . he was seen by Cephas (Peter), the by the twelve. After that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once . . . And last of al he was seen by me also, as of one born out of due time. (1 Cor 15:4-8)

Right! I’m using the gospels to prove the gospels, because they are inspired by God Himself.

Hey. . . what about a response from you about the recorded healings at Lourdes? Did you read that page???

 

[4Horsemen]

I’m not sure what is meant, when one says “personal God.” I do not believe in a “personal God,” if what is meant is either that God is something unique and different for each of us, or that He Himself is person-like, or human. I believe God transcends our limitations, and the dualities of the human mind. That was the point I was trying to make – that God is above such conceptions as black/white, up/down, in/out. In the grand scheme, such words and concepts hold no meaning.

God is vast, eternal, and inseparable–indivisible. This lesson is taught over and over, yet we still have tendencies toward stating “this is that” and “that is this,” when all things come from God. Nothing in this Universe is not-God; He created all things. All things came from Him; all things go to Him; all things are Him. Whether up, down, in, out, black, white, left, right – God is all around us. We can’t separate Him from the things we witness; His hand is visible in all things.

There is much you say that I can absorb and that rings true about the nature of God. And much is very poetic. However, you don’t present the whole story of His PERSONAL love for us. I see that you consider yourself a “spiritualist” which, obviously is not a Christian stance.

Although I agree that “God is vast, eternal and inseparable–indivisible,” the completeness that is an attribute of God requires that He contain all that is, yet He can speak of opposites such as life and death, good and evil, happiness and sadness, love and hate, light and darkness, etc . . . in his holy Word.

 

[Light1111]

I agree. I think when God makes such distinctions, it is for the benefit of our human minds. He knows we must dwell in such conceptions, for that is the way the world appears to us, as we are so limited in our consciousness. Much the way we must receive something “In layman’s terms,” when we are not well-versed in a given field of research; so, too, we must receive things in “human terms” when we listen to the Word of God. Perhaps the enlightened man can handle more complex conceptualizations – perhaps Pope John Paul II did not have difficulties transcending the dualities of this world. I know I struggle within the confines of duality, but I also carry the sense that there is something far more grand than what we witness. Each moment is a miracle, each new life, each harbinger of seasons changing, and yet we sometimes say there have been no miracles since Biblical times. Life itself is a miracle, and we can always strive to achieve a more encompassing view of All that Is. It’s a steep road!

I am reminded of the following:

“Masters don’t teach the truth; there is no way to teach it. It is a transmission beyond scriptures, beyond words. It is energy provoking energy in you. You have to approach the Master with great love, with great trust, with an open heart. You are not aware who you are. He is aware who He is; He is aware who you are. The caterpillar might be said to be unaware that it may become a butterfly. . . The master/disciple relationship is the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly, a friendship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. The butterfly cannot prove that the caterpillar can become a butterfly; there is no logical way. But the butterfly can provoke a longing in the caterpillar – that is possible.”

If we follow the Word of the Lord, we are following the encouragement of a Master to His Disciple. His Words are but the tip of the iceberg, as there is no way for Him to truly explain in words what is expected of us. He can provide guidelines. If we follow them, an awakening may begin within us. For there is a distinction between behavior, and intent. One can come from pure intent, and yet exhibit poor behavior. One can come from fouled intent, and yet exhibit exemplary behavior.

Finally, after following The Word for an extended period of time, with a pure intent, something naturally unfolds within . . . and then it is no longer necessary to recall the precise words, for the natural blossoming of peace, love and gratitude finally exists within the heart. At that time, one no longer needs to remember the rules and laws . . . one abides them unconsciously, from within the deep well of love and gratitude that God’s hand inspired within the Soul. Then it is possible to communicate with him in a manner than goes beyond words. At the beginning, words are necessary.

 

[4Horsemen]

I agree. I think when God makes such distinctions, it is for the benefit of our human minds. He knows we must dwell in such conceptions, for that is the way the world appears to us, as we are so limited in our consciousness. Much the way we must receive something “In layman’s terms,” when we are not well-versed in a given field of research; so, too, we must receive things in “human terms” when we listen to the Word of God. Perhaps the enlightened man can handle more complex conceptualizations – perhaps Pope John Paul II did not have difficulties transcending the dualities of this world. I know I struggle within the confines of duality, but I also carry the sense that there is something far more grand than what we witness. Each moment is a miracle, each new life, each harbinger of seasons changing, and yet we sometimes say there have been no miracles since Biblical times. Life itself is a miracle, and we can always strive to achieve a more encompassing view of All that Is. It’s a steep road!

You talked about the kernals of the spiritual life much better than I ever could. What you seem to be leading to are the seeds of contemplation. I love your image of the caterpillar and butterfly. Transcending the material of this world, including our limitations, our emotions, our ttotality as a person and becoming immersed in God-ness, in God Himself. Your exposition of the struggle over duality is similar to what monks and hermits experienced in the desert–their “dark night of the soul.” A book of that title was written by a holy monk, St. John of the Cross. I would guess you may have an interest in the mystics.

“Masters don’t teach the truth; there is no way to teach it. It is a transmission beyond scriptures, beyond words. It is energy provoking energy in you. You have to approach the Master with great love, with great trust, with an open heart. You are not aware who you are. He is aware who He is; He is aware who you are. The caterpillar might be said to be unaware that it may become a butterfly. . . The master/disciple relationship is the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly, a friendship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. The butterfly cannot prove that the caterpillar can become a butterfly; there is no logical way. But the butterfly can provoke a longing in the caterpillar – that is possible.”{/Quote]

When spiritual persons seek a Master, for Christians it is the same as a Spiritual Director. St Teresa of Avila had a difficult time finding the right spiritual director for the state of her soul. She writes many pages on this, A true Master, as the disciples called Jesus, brings their whole being into communion with God. For many great saints, their unity with God was mystical and ecstatic.

[Quotte]If we follow the Word of the Lord, we are following the encouragement of a Master to His Disciple. His Words are but the tip of the iceberg, as there is no way for Him to truly explain in words what is expected of us. He can provide guidelines. If we follow them, an awakening may begin within us. **For there is a distinction between behavior, and intent. One can come from pure intent, and yet exhibit poor behavior. One can come from fouled **intent, and yet exhibit exemplary behavior.

The part in bold is what I don’t understand. A good tree bears good fruit; a bad tree bears bad fruit," as Jesus told us. That registers with me.

Finally, after following The Word for an extended period of time, with a pure intent, something naturally unfolds within . . . and then it is no longer necessary to recall the precise words, for the natural blossoming of peace, love and gratitude finally exists within the heart. At that time, one no longer needs to remember the rules and laws . . . one abides them unconsciously, from within the deep well of love and gratitude that God’s hand inspired within the Soul. Then it is possible to communicate with him in a manner than goes beyond words. At the beginning, words are necessary.

That’s why it is said that the whole Law is contained in the two Great Commandments:
“Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And, likewise, love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[Light1111]

Thanks for your thoughts, 4Horsemen. I do enjoy the writings of the mystics, and they always create a longing in me! Like that little quotation about the butterfly and the caterpillar–when you are lucky enough to meet the butterfly, you can only begin to sense that you are capable of what he has achieved. The longing that arises is the beginning of pure intent.

When I said the part about “pure intent” and “fouled intent,” I was speaking of the fact that if we have a semblance of control over ourselves, and have made a commitment to obey society’s laws (or the laws of our Church, etc.), we can behave one way, and feel another. Take for instance envy: we might know this is one of the deadly sins, yet there it exists within us. We may feel helpless about that fact, not knowing how to “fix” it. So, when we hear news that our friend just received a huge promotion and raise–as a Catholic, as that person’s friend–we may say the right words: “Congratulations. I’m so happy for you–you deserved this.” Simultaneously, we may be feeling envy’s stirrings within. Good intents, pure sentiments, do not necessarily arise merely because one lives according to God’s Word. It is when the internal sentiments transcend the teachings–when they have been so firmly integrated and internalized that you don’t need reminders of how to think, feel and behave – that we naturally feel a gratitude rising up within us, at the idea that our friend, whom we love, has gotten what he deserves. Then we feel happy for him, without the need of envy clouding our view of the situation. Envy’s problem is that it believes that, when someone else has something, there won’t be enough for us, to go around. That’s seldom true (except of course in extreme famine and the like). For the average American citizen, we’ll be able to enjoy “our piece” even as others enjoy theirs. There is no place for envy, but it takes tremendous growth of the soul, not to suffer with this sentiment to any degree whatsoever. I witness envy’s hand in many life events, and I’ve often felt that envy is the true root of much of what we call “evil.”

When I said that intent might not match behavior, I was referring to the fact that a transformation needs to occur within, and that transformation may begin blossoming slowly, over a long period of time, as one feels that natural thirst arising, that longing within, when he meets the butterfly. The desire to melt and merge with God, to know Him on a level that goes beyond scripture, can assist the individual in finding that the internal matches the external.

In psychoanalysis, there is the concept of “the good enough mother/father.” This is the idea that the mother/father does not need to be perfect, in order to create a child who is “more good than bad.” If the mother and father prove to their child that they love him, that they will watch over and protect him, provide for him and give him a sense of security, then he will turn out “good enough” (but not perfect!). Even if it were possible for her to be “perfect,” he’d benefit more by her being “merely good enough,” as it is not conducive to true learning and self-actualization to be in an artificially perfect environment. He benefits from witnessing his mother’s well-intentioned mistakes. He also benefits from occasionally having to tolerate frustration–that is, not getting exactly what he wants, whenever he wants it. Hearing “No,” from time to time, is good for the young child. If, at the end of child rearing, the child meets the world with the belief that it is “more good than bad,” and he believes his mother to be “more good than bad,” then, the achievement is that he will feel and know that he is “more good than bad.” This is the basis for mental health, and it is the foundation for what we know as “trust.” If we see the world as “more bad than good,” we never develop that critical sense of trust. Trust is of utmost importance–particularly in relating with God. Some individuals we meet in life clearly believe this world to be “more bad than good,” and it reflects in their ideas and in their behaviors.

The spiritual health of a person grows up from out of the mental health–there is no other way, as we are limited within the confines of our minds. But if one has a shaky mental health, and commits himself to the path of truth and light–following the Word of the Lord; following the longing to become like the butterfly, from the tiny caterpillar–he can find a new gratitude, a new sense of peace, blooming within. Such circumstances may be rare, but as the blossom of spiritual peace arises, the difficulty of the mental construct will heal as well. If one suddenly finds God’s hand all around him, and indeed starts seeing God’s world as being “more good than bad,” he’ll naturally see that his intent matches his behaviors-- that the “good” he is doing, as a religious, God-fearing person, has transformed itself into an expression of love and gratitude. That purity is not forced or coerced; it is pure. It developed due to all the beauty that the self bears witness to.

Thanks for pointing out some of the mystics who’ve written about such things. I’ve been interested in St. John of the Cross for years. What does he say on this topic? I’d love to read more about him – are his books readily accessible? I have heard he wrote beautiful love poetry to God for years, while held captive.

Thanks for sharing, 4Horsemen. This is such a lovely discussion!

 

[Light1111]

4Horsemen:

That’s why it is said that the whole Law is contained in the two Great Commandments:
“Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And, likewise, love your neighbor as yourself.”

I think this example is really a good one, 4Horsemen. The thing about these Commandments is: how does one achieve this? They are Commandments, and yet, one either does or doesn’t feel this way. One can emulate these feelings through proper behavior, but to truly feel love for the self, for thy neighbor, and for God, takes a great deal of inner spiritual cleansing, and an awareness of the self. One cannot truly feel the heart of another, if they don’t first feel in touch with their own heart. A self-critical person can have a hard time believing anyone is deserving. This is all internal, and goes beyond intentions. One can have very ardent intentions, very pure desire, and still struggle to feel “love” for their neighbor.

For instance, my Dad quotes these two Commandments frequently. He clearly believes they are important to God, and important for us, in our lives. Yet, he can spend hours speaking with evident rage, as he criticizes various politicians, etc. Of course this is natural! And human. And yet it is also without doubt that it violates the Commandments. It simply hasn’t developed naturally within him, to feel charitably towards them. He seems them as deserving of hatred. They’re merely an example, but it goes to show that a well-meaning person can still fall short here. You can’t force love. I do think one can strive to achieve love, and it may take a very long time to get there.

But the desire matters a great deal–and when we do fall short, but God sees that desire – I believe He forgives us. I know my Dad is a good man, and that He doesn’t deserve condemnation for this shortcoming on his part. He can’t “help it.” I understand that. He’s just human–and we all have faults. But it’s really not as easy to “obey” those Commandments, as it sounds. One can behave, outwardly, in accordance with these Commandments. . . but their internal feelings may not match the true order: to love. It’s just something that either is or isn’t there . . .but it can longed for, and that matters much! The God I believe in (you asked if I believed in a personal God?) cares very much what our intentions are, and He understands when we aren’t “there yet.” He knows we are trying; that is enough, for “now!”

 

[4Horsemen]

Thanks for your thoughts, 4Horsemen. I do enjoy the writings of the mystics, and they always create a longing in me! Like that little quotation about the butterfly and the caterpillar–when you are lucky enough to meet the butterfly, you can only begin to sense that you are capable of what he has achieved. The longing that arises is the beginning of pure intent.

Light1111,
Yes, I agree that reading books by the mystics, particularly the great Carmelites like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross produces a “longing” as you stated. That “longing” is for union with God, and the “longing” proceeds from God. Here’s another way of thinking about the caterpillar and the butterfuly.

God makes a little home for the caterpillar to shield it from the world. In this little home, or cocoon, God speaks to it and teaches it, while knitting it like a child in its mother’s womb (Isaiah 49), the secrets of the spiritual life. Then when the time comes to burst forth, God calls the little caterpillar to new birth and to go out into the world and do the work He has deigned for it. In other words, although the “work” of the caterpillar is to present evidence of God’s design in its beauty, the significance for the human soul is to go out into the harvest and “catch men” as Jesus told his fishermen apostles.

When I said the part about “pure intent” and “fouled intent,” I was speaking of the fact that if we have a semblance of control over ourselves, and have made a commitment to obey society’s laws (or the laws of our Church, etc.), we can behave one way, and feel another. Take for instance envy: we might know this is one of the deadly sins, yet there it exists within us.

This is the weakness of our human nature. We act opposing the Spirit. St. Paul, himself, acknowledged this conundrum:

“And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good . . . For that which I do I allow not: for what I would that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” (Romans 7:10-15 KJ version, which sounds clunky compared to the New American Bible).

It is when the internal sentiments transcend the teachings–when they have been so firmly integrated and internalized that you don’t need reminders of how to think, feel and behave – that we naturally feel a gratitude rising up within us, at the idea that our friend, whom we love, has gotten what he deserves. Then we feel happy for him, without the need of envy clouding our view of the situation. Envy’s problem is that it believes that, when someone else has something, there won’t be enough for us, to go around."

Truly, envy seems to be the basis, perhaps, of other sins, covetousness, lust, greed . . .
Transcending these sins, imperfections, and failures is the key. But the question becomes: how do we overcome the “flesh?”

Again, St. Paul tells us: “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is non of His.”
(Romans 9, I took a little liberty with the translation).

When I said that intent might not match behavior, I was referring to the fact that a transformation needs to occur within . . . "

I agree with your idea of transformation “blossoming slowly, over a long period of time . . .”, as long as it tales to lead to union with God, who is the butterfly in the imagery-- the Master, the Teacher, our Brother, our Friend, the Beloved.

“Perfect love casts out all fear,” Scripture tells us, and that is where we need to venture–into “Perfect Love” without fear. It is an adventure God has planned for those who wish to transcend the ordinary and live their lives in the Spirit.

In psychoanalysis, there is the concept of “the good enough mother/father.” This is the idea that the mother/father does not need to be perfect, in order to create a child who is “more good than bad.”

Since there is no perfection in this world, we can only strive to do what we trust is our best with constant prayer ("Pray unceasingly) as well as using our reasoning powers correctly. Getting to the OP or title of this thread, what we are “Required to believe” as, for example, the Ten Commandments, may at first seem like a burden, but when we submit to God’s Will, we begin to see that they are meant for our own good, so that we can live a just life and treat others with justice and respect and even love–caritas. Also, as you said, it depends on how we see the world, which certainly effects our way of thinking, acting and believing.

Thanks for pointing out some of the mystics who’ve written about such things. I’ve been interested in St. John of the Cross for years. What does he say on this topic? I’d love to read more about him – are his books readily accessible? I have heard he wrote beautiful love poetry to God for years, while held captive.

Here is a link to his work, The Dark Night of the Soul

books.google.ca/books?id=N4_Tc1YKRiQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=st.+john+of+the+cross&source=bl&ots=uk4OuOFQRf&sig=_x-SIRnlKz4q1UVOFiBvIVDueRk&hl=en&ei=vSi3TLixC4Ofnweu_smICA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=st.%20john%20of%20the%20cross&f=false

(If it doesn’t work, google it).

Try researching St. Teresa of Avila’s works. Her Interior Castle is a beautiful prose, but almost poetic (like St. John) description of the various “rooms” or heights in the spiritual life for those who make the arduous journey.

Thanks for sharing, 4Horsemen. This is such a lovely discussion!

Thank you too, Light1111. I agree. By the way, is there a hidden meaning in the 4 1’s?

 

[4Horsemen]

4Horsemen:

That’s why it is said that the whole Law is contained in the two Great Commandments:
“Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. And, likewise, love your neighbor as yourself.”

I think this example is really a good one, 4Horsemen. The thing about these Commandments is: how does one achieve this? They are Commandments, and yet, one either does or doesn’t feel this way. One can emulate these feelings through proper behavior, but to truly feel love for the self, for thy neighbor, and for God, takes a great deal of inner spiritual cleansing, and an awareness of the self. One cannot truly feel the heart of another, if they don’t first feel in touch with their own heart. A self-critical person can have a hard time believing anyone is deserving. This is all internal, and goes beyond intentions. One can have very ardent intentions, very pure desire, and still struggle to feel “love” for their neighbor.

You are sooooo. . . right about the “great deal of inner cleansing”, but I am not so sure about “an awareness of self.” In fact, those who immerse themselves in God, lose “self” because “self” gets in the way with its needs, wants, sins, acedia, selfishness, envy . . . Yet, I agree we must be in touch with our heart to know where we are going and how far we have traversed in the spiritual life.

Here is a sampling of what to expect in St. John of the Cross’ Dark Night of the Soul. But check the link below and read the poem.

“Before embarking on an explanation of these stanzas, we should remember that the soul recites them when it has already reached the state of perfection - that is, union with God through love - and has now passed through severe trials and conflicts by means of the spiritual exercise that leads one along the constricted way to eternal life, of which our Savior speaks in the Gospel [Mt. 7:14]. The soul must ordinarily walk this path to reach that sublime and joyous union with God. Recognizing the narrowness of the path and the fact that so very few tread it - as the Lord himself says [Mt. 7:14] - the soul’s song in this first stanza is one of happiness in having advanced along it to this perfection of love. Appropriately, this constricted road is called a dark night, as we shall explain in later verses of this stanza. The soul, therefore, happy at having trod this narrow road from which it derived so much good, speaks in this manner:”

ocd.or.at/ics/john/dn.html

DO READ THE BEAUTIFUL POEM that goes before the quote.

For instance, my Dad quotes these two Commandments frequently. He clearly believes they are important to God, and important for us, in our lives. Yet, he can spend hours speaking with evident rage, as he criticizes various politicians, etc.

Don’t worry about your Dad, but maybe it would be good to discuss with him gently how his attitude does not help his spiritual life. (My Mom went to daily Mass, but as my Dad said, “You’d never know it!”) My opinion is that they were not called to walk the dry spiritual path that is “the narrow path.” Very few can discipline themselves to such a degree that it rids those called of their purgatorial sentence. These are the ones whom God cleanses on earth and prepares them for great works.

There are 3 parts of the spiritual life: Purgative, Illuminative and Unitive ( Divine union).

One can behave, outwardly, in accordance with these Commandments. . . but their internal feelings may not match the true order: to love. It’s just something that either is or isn’t there . . .but it can longed for, and that matters much! The God I believe in (you asked if I believed in a personal God?) cares very much what our intentions are, and He understands when we aren’t “there yet.” He knows we are trying; that is enough, for “now!”

All we can do is pursue Our Lord and Savior. Actually, He pursues us. Read the book Hind’s Feet on High Places, an allegory about the spiritual life.

A quote about this book:
"It is the story of a young woman named Much-Afraid, and her journey away from her Fearing family and into the High Places of the Shepherd, guided by her two companions Sorrow and Suffering. It is an allegory of a Christian devotional life. The book takes its title from Habakkuk 3:19, “The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinds’_Feet_on_High_Places

There are many wonderful spiritual books to help us on her journey. A while back I had started a thread on this.

 

[AntiTheist]

You’re wrong about the timing. It is now understood that the gospels were written, most likely, before 70 A.D.

, which would mean that the gospels were the oral legend of a cult for decades before being written down by non-eyewitnesses, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

The way you have it set up is certainly circular.

It was you who submitted the text’s own claim to be divinely inspired as evidence that the text is reliable. If you are retracting that argument, that would be a good move.

1. Testimonies can be reliable or unreliable.
2. If the souce is reliable, we can assume truthfulness.
3. Generally, the more reliable sources, whose testimony agrees, the higher the expectation of truthfulness.
4. In the case of the gospels, there are many reliable sources, whose testimony agrees, so the gospels are truthful.

I dispute that the gospels are reliable. They were legends passed down by a cult and finally written down by non-eyewitnesses.

At any rate, eyewitness testimony, even from “reliable” witnesses, carries little to no weight in extraordinary claims. If a reliable fellow tells you that he went to Disney land, you’d probably believe him. If the same fellow tells you that he went to Disney land in a spaceship with aliens, then you probably wouldn’t believe him, no matter how reliable he was.

If eyewitness testimony cannot carry weight for extraordinary claims, then non-eyewitness anonymous recordings of the legends of a cult carry far less weight for extraordinary claims, which is what we have in the gospels.

In the case of the gospels, there are many reliable sources dependent upon the Holy Spirit, whose testimony agrees, so the gospels are truthful.

You are, again, presuming that the texts are correct in reporting their dependence on the supernatural and then using that presumption to affirm the rest of the text.

How did you come to the conclusion that they’re correct about that detail? You must already have thought that they’re truthful before you began constructing the argument to demonstrate that they’re truthful. It’s a circle.

St. Paul speaks

Not a contemporary of Jesus, and he never knew the historical Jesus. He had a vision that he attributed to Jesus.

Right! I’m using the gospels to prove the gospels, because they are inspired by God Himself.

Yes. Why do you keep doing that?

Hey. . . what about a response from you about the recorded healings at Lourdes? Did you read that page???

Well, you’ve already admitted that you cannot demonstrate that such “healings” are anything more than natural recovery, so I really don’t know what you’re looking for here. “Neat story”?

 

[jmcrae]

, which would mean that the gospels were the oral legend of a cult for decades before being written down by non-eyewitnesses, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

The 70s AD is well within the lifetime of the Apostles - they were teenagers and young adults at the time of Christ’s ministry. St. John is known to have still been alive in 95 AD. He most likely wrote his Gospel in 90 AD, and his other works (the Book of Revelation, and the 3 Epistles) during the period up to 95 AD.

It was you who submitted the text’s own claim to be divinely inspired as evidence that the text is reliable. If you are retracting that argument, that would be a good move.

The text itself does not contain any such claim. The Church did not definitively make any such claim until the very early 400s AD, after much investigation. Our religion is not based on the text of the Scriptures, but rather on the traditions handed down by the Apostles. The Scriptures are simply part of the supporting evidence for the tradition.

 

[Light1111]

Light1111,

God makes a little home for the caterpillar to shield it from the world. In this little home, or cocoon, God speaks to it and teaches it, while knitting it like a child in its mother’s womb (Isaiah 49), the secrets of the spiritual life. Then when the time comes to burst forth, God calls the little caterpillar to new birth and to go out into the world and do the work He has deigned for it. In other words, although the “work” of the caterpillar is to present evidence of God’s design in its beauty, the significance for the human soul is to go out into the harvest and “catch men” as Jesus told his fishermen apostles.

I see this a tiny bit differently, though of course that is natural as I am not a Christian. What has been useful about this exercise, to me, and so moving, is that as we go back and forth, discussing our views of God, the limitations of the human, and a sincere desire to transcend those limitations, we are in agreement on so many points. I find that beautiful, and that’s one of the reasons why I joined this forum. I do believe that in the end, most of us agree with one another, on more points than we disagree. So while I see this spiritual quest as being an internal one, where flowers blossom once the intent matches the good behavior one has undertaken, and don’t believe there is the need to spread the Word literally, as one’s mere example can move others, we still see how many areas here, we wind up in the same place. Whether one makes that final outward attempt to reach others through spreading Jesus’ message, or not, up to this point in our discussion we have been seeing eye to eye, and that is something that is very moving to me. As a former Catholic who will always feel and remember my Catholic roots, I am always pleased to see agreement between my beliefs, feelings, aspirations, and those of a Catholic–or any other person, for that matter. Your careful and thought-provoking words have moved me, and you’ve encouraged that awakening to continue within me! Thank you for that.

“Perfect love casts out all fear,” Scripture tells us, and that is where we need to venture–into “Perfect Love” without fear. It is an adventure God has planned for those who wish to transcend the ordinary and live their lives in the Spirit.

I agree with this. I have struggled with anxiety in my life. As a small child, I had nearly daily panic attacks. We didn’t know what they were called back then–people didn’t used to discuss such things! But I can recall the many times I reached out to God and asked Him to quiet my fears, to provide me a sense of comfort, of peace, of being secure in this moment, so that I can fall asleep tonight, and wake up feeling refreshed and ready to take on the day. On a great number of occasions, I was suddenly overtaken by a sense of calm, and heavy and leaden, was able to fall into a deep sleep. I know that during each of those episodes, whether I felt Him with me or not, God was by my side, and witnessed my suffering. When He was able to impact me in my heart, and help me to feel His presence and His love for me, my fear did fall away. It’s a miraculous thing. I have also called upon my Guardian Angel, and have received comfort from him or her, as well.

Thank you for these links! St. Teresa is a favorite of mine. I took her name when I made my Confirmation, and I have prayed countless Novenas to her over the years. She’s an excellent example of the inner matching the outer! And thank you for the St. John of the Cross links and quotations. I enjoyed that tremendously.

Thank you too, Light1111. I agree. By the way, is there a hidden meaning in the 4 1’s?

My maternal grandmother lived with us when I was a child. She was a highly devotional Roman Catholic. She instilled in me a belief that we can receive communications from Angels, Saints, even God, and that the number 1111 is one pure route through which communication can flow. Since her death, I have seen this number “at random” with great frequency. I also think of it as her way of letting me know she is still with me, still “alive,” still filled with love. It is comforting to me. I realize she was a bit avant-garde in this belief, as it is technically not the sort of thing a Catholic believes, but she did have a bit of an eclectic view of one’s relationship with God, as she was Southern Italian, and influences apart from the Catholic Church were a part of her rearing. She didn’t distinguish between ideas, saying “This is Catholic and this is an Italian belief,” to her, all she believed was evidence of God’s hand. In any case, I’m always grateful when I’m reminded of her, as I miss her very much and am so grateful to know she lives in peace and love in Heaven.

 

[Light1111]

I’m sorry – I have no idea how to multi-quote, or how to make the quotes I’m responding to appear separate from my new additions! Maybe someone can give me a mini-tutorial! Sorry for the confusing mess above!

 

[4Horsemen]

The 70s AD is well within the lifetime of the Apostles - they were teenagers and young adults at the time of Christ’s ministry. St. John is known to have still been alive in 95 AD. He most likely wrote his Gospel in 90 AD, and his other works (the Book of Revelation, and the 3 Epistles) during the period up to 95 AD.

It was you who submitted the text’s own claim to be divinely inspired as evidence that the text is reliable. If you are retracting that argument, that would be a good move.

I believe you mean that although the text, itself, doesn’t say it is divinely inspired, we can find reasons to believe it is. As you said, the Scriptures are “supporting evidence for the tradition.” It was the Apostles and disciples who handed down the oral tradition as well as the text, formalizing it in the early Councils by their successors.

Within the text itself, we know that all the prophecies about Jesus were fulfilled. He promised to send the Holy Spirit: “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything and remind you of what I have told you.” (Jn. 14-26)

Christ speaks to the men on the road to Emmaus: “O fools, and slow of heart to belieeve all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, her expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

One more example!

Jesus had told his apostles: “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you. I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to be with you forever, that Spirit of truth whom the world can never receive since it neither sees not know him. But you know him because he is with you. He is in you.” (Jn. 14: 16-17).

My point is that one can still reason that the texts are reliable, even without the early tradition and Councils. (Much like Protestants do).