T
tahira
Guest
i really hope that that could come true that Gods mercy was great and powerful enough to heal satan. i really hope that satan is offeed redemption and another choice to follow God.
- Status
F
Frater_Bovious
Guest
If my understanding is correct, Satan made a decision at the beginning of time - the decision was “I will not serve.” In order to be forgiven - he would have to decide to serve - which, if my angelology is correct, is not consistent with the understanding of Angels as being such high order beings as to have been created with perfect wills.
The time issue is really irrelevant to anyone but us time-bound folks. So it does not matter that it was “a long time ago.”
Evil, not evil - it may help to see good on a kind of sliding scale. God is perfectly good. As things or creatures become less than God, they are less than good. At some point, it could be argued at some arbitrary point, the distance from good is far enough that we register it as Evil. Seen in this way, good and evil are not opposites. Kind of like Hot and Cold are not really opposites. There is Heat, and there are varying degrees of absence of Heat. We all have different levels of tolerance for how high or how low a temperature we are comfortable with. Sadly, the same seems to be true with Good and Evil.
There is only Good, and Less than Good. Satan, being a mighty angel, in turning away from good, turned about as far away as I guess any creature can get. We call it evil.
In short, it appears impossible to me that Satan will suddenly decide to follow and serve God. This, ironically, is a function of God’s mercy - that is, his gift of Free Will. Their (the angels) great strength of essentially perfect will and being, is also their downfall in their exercise of free will. Satan, it should be understood, knew full well what he was doing and did it anyway, and would not be having any regrets or he would not be the angel that he is.
Our weakness is a great gift from God because we can be forgiven our poor use of free will and turn to God, even after a lifetime of turning away.
FB
The time issue is really irrelevant to anyone but us time-bound folks. So it does not matter that it was “a long time ago.”
Evil, not evil - it may help to see good on a kind of sliding scale. God is perfectly good. As things or creatures become less than God, they are less than good. At some point, it could be argued at some arbitrary point, the distance from good is far enough that we register it as Evil. Seen in this way, good and evil are not opposites. Kind of like Hot and Cold are not really opposites. There is Heat, and there are varying degrees of absence of Heat. We all have different levels of tolerance for how high or how low a temperature we are comfortable with. Sadly, the same seems to be true with Good and Evil.
There is only Good, and Less than Good. Satan, being a mighty angel, in turning away from good, turned about as far away as I guess any creature can get. We call it evil.
In short, it appears impossible to me that Satan will suddenly decide to follow and serve God. This, ironically, is a function of God’s mercy - that is, his gift of Free Will. Their (the angels) great strength of essentially perfect will and being, is also their downfall in their exercise of free will. Satan, it should be understood, knew full well what he was doing and did it anyway, and would not be having any regrets or he would not be the angel that he is.
Our weakness is a great gift from God because we can be forgiven our poor use of free will and turn to God, even after a lifetime of turning away.
FB
T
tonyrey
Guest
There are two very good reasons for believing that no one, including Satan, is ever beyond hope of redemption.
- Jesus died for everyone and His infinite love can overcome every obstacle to a person’s redemption - except one. He is always prepared to welcome a repentant sinner.
- The only obstacle is determination to have total control of our destiny. But how could anyone who is in God’s presence be free to reject Him? If we can do this we cannot know Him as He really is; otherwise we would be spellbound by His goodness and beauty. It would have been impossible for Satan to reject God if he could see Him as He really is. So there is no reason why he cannot be forgiven - provided that he asks for forgiveness and makes amends for what he has done and failed to do.
C
choy
Guest
Satan is beyond redemption
do you think God will not try to save Lucifer if he can be saved?
the nature of angels are to serve God. Lucifer changed his very nature by opposing God.
humans by nature has the free will and choice to follow good or evil. if we do evil, we are not going against our nature. that is why we can be redeemed.
do you think God will not try to save Lucifer if he can be saved?
the nature of angels are to serve God. Lucifer changed his very nature by opposing God.
humans by nature has the free will and choice to follow good or evil. if we do evil, we are not going against our nature. that is why we can be redeemed.
J
jakeorely
Guest
jesus was black
T
tahira
Guest
what things do you think satan must do to be forgiven? do you think that God wants him to leave home?
H
hansard
Guest
This, from the online Catholic Encyclopedia, is a very lucid and compelling article on the topic of satans and devils:
newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm
L
LilyM
Guest
Exactly. A bit like praying for a round square or something - it’s a logical impossibility for it to come about, and God isn’t illogical, although sometimes His logic is well beyond oursImpossible, not unlikely. It wouldn’t hurt, but it couldn’t help either.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Home is where you make it! If Satan decides to love God - and others as himself - he will feel perfectly at home…
T
tahira
Guest
do you really believe that satan could be forgiven?? i hope so
D
Detales
Guest
*But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? * ~Mark Twain
Since it is clear that religion is the metaphysics of the masses, meaning that it is the avoidance of critical thinking about one’s Self by accepting someone else’s story of misunderstanding about “salvation,” it is easy to see why the story of the fall of Lucifer, meant to be an allegory about the nature of awareness, is misunderstood by means of personalization. It is the same mistake as is made in the most central of ideas of the Abrahamic religions. That one mistake allows for Mark Twain to say the above, and to have masses of people misconstruing the most fundamental aspect of their own being.
Since it is clear that religion is the metaphysics of the masses, meaning that it is the avoidance of critical thinking about one’s Self by accepting someone else’s story of misunderstanding about “salvation,” it is easy to see why the story of the fall of Lucifer, meant to be an allegory about the nature of awareness, is misunderstood by means of personalization. It is the same mistake as is made in the most central of ideas of the Abrahamic religions. That one mistake allows for Mark Twain to say the above, and to have masses of people misconstruing the most fundamental aspect of their own being.
K
kamalayka9
Guest
I guess it is true what the apostle says: “The more they become philosophers, the more stupid they become!”
Anyways, here is something worth reading:
stjames-church.com/book1c3.html
It is a private revelation on the creation of angels and the fall of Lucifer.
C
crazzeto
Guest
No, Satan can not be forgiven. This is not due to a flaw in Gods plan, or a lack of Charity on Gods part. It is due to the immutable nature of Satan’s sin.
D
Detales
Guest
Thanks for sharing that, Kamalayka9, it is exact proof of what I posted. Good job!
L
Life_in_God
Guest
Satan is not like a humanbeing in that he has full knowledge of the what is right and wrong and human beings have a tendency to see things partially rather than seeing the whole of situations. it is much easier for human beings to stumble and fall due to failures in understanding whiole Satan’s decisions are the decisions of an angelic being with a superior intelligence and full knowledge. Conversion for Satan would be a miracle. will Satan ever fall down before God’s Throne and say “I truly have sinned against You and I should have known that You are my Creator, that I am only a creature. That I should have served You from the first and not have waged war against you and your creation.” Satan would have all of human history, all of the temptations put forth by his cohorts, all that he did to destroy rather than build up faith, all that he has done to try to take God’s Kingdom and His throne from God, Himself…all that to atone for!
Satan knows he has set Himself up as equal to God and has even tried to prove he is superior to God…what folly is that?
I gues it shows that knowledge is not the same as wisdom…wisdon beginning with “fear of the Lord”…something which Satan seems to lack completely.
and so many people here are actinbg the same way, imitating Satan in the ways they do not fear God any more and acting as if they can achieve a perfect world without God, God’s Laws and God’s Will… supreme foolishness!
But God said he would vomit out the luke warm…and there are many of those in the world today too. perhaps the poorest of all are all those souls who think they are good but never fully commit themselves to proclaiming God and acting in a way to right the wrongs in the world around them. They live in comfort and ease never enter the battle against evil. I find this type of soul seems to be the most predominant around me. Satan must delight in getting sould to be indifferent to evil.
I do not understand what it is to be an angel since I am human, so I can never really say if Satan is capable of conversion. I can only hope so.
I had a dream last fall before the elections of being in a room and there were many people in the room doing nothing and saying nothing about the abortion issue etc. Just think hw many Catholics and Christians voted for Obama! I was trying to get people to speak up and was not able to do so. The a beautiful woman in the middle of the room began to say a song known to her alone. I could not hear the words, but as she said the words, angels came down and surrounded all the people in the room and they began to speak out on things. it was amazing.
I believe the 'beautiful woman" was the Blessed Mother, “Queen of Angel”, who was allowed by God to release a prayer given to her alone for this special time we are in. pray that this prayer will be released.
In Christ, Life in God
D
Detales
Guest
“Satan” is that quality of human awareness that limits experience and claims to know God as an object separate from Self as the “I,” which limited and therefore unknown you call “me” as a usurping of Divinity." That is the crucifixion: that you don’t know the Source of your person, and yet claim to know God as a thought, not an experience.
L
Life_in_God
Guest
Can you please give the exact sourxe for this quote…if you are going to give a quote, give who you are quoting…
Explain why this source would capitalize “Self”,=== my concern is that you are raising “Self” to a Divinity…
Answer this: If God is not an Object separate from 'self" then how is it that God existed long before any individual existed and that God would exist even if any individual did not exist and ceased to exist…
It seems to me you castigate religious thought and yet your quote is a religious thought.
If I am misunderstanding your meanings explain them to me. Your quote from the Duay Rheims Bible talks about how much Christ used parables to explain things to His Disciples, I believe this is because stories are a classical way of teaching, a way that people easily remember. Parables allow for layers of meaning, personal and universal…but your preceding statement seems to indicate that you do not believe in Universal truth or truth outsideof the realm of 'self"…that is folly and a lie. A parable can be personally interprreted but it still has the aspect of universal truth which would be applicable to all.
Satan would love it if everyone was running around claiming their “Self” as the divinity.
Sounds like the same apple offered Eve in the Garden to me…
In Christ,
Life In God
D
Detales
Guest
Life in God, since your profile gives the information (thank you) that you are an adult and a teacher, I answer you in the following way:
~Can you please give the exact sourxe (sic) for this quote…if you are going to give a quote, give who you are quoting… Certainly. That statement is, in those words, original with me.
~Explain why this source would capitalize “Self”,=== my concern is that you are raising “Self” to a Divinity… Yes, this is a common error with speakers of English who do not understand the esoteric meaning of the word “Self,” That word being equatable or synonymous with Divinity. It is similar to the widespread misunderstanding of the word “I.” Many have commented on this, but my favorite is from Robert A. Heinlein, who said “In English only the first person singular (present tense) of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” This misunderstanding leads to tragic misinterpretations of Identity statements in the Bible. A far deeper and exhaustive treatment of this idea, with examples, is to be found in David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in the prefatory material of books by Dr. K.G. Mills.
~Answer this: If God is not an Object separate from 'self" then how is it that God existed long before any individual existed and that God would exist even if any individual did not exist and ceased to exist… Is God separate from God? The ALLNESS of God is called Self. “Individual” means, as well, “undivided” so God is the only Individual in the non-personal sense. It is only because English, being based on the premise of duality, forces mental constructs of division that the original Teaching language of parables, eg, is misunderstood and personalized where no such intention is inherent within them. Original Teaching is relevant to this idea, where most religiosity, eg the Abrahamic religions, are in the realm of the field subject/object perception. That means in the world and of it, not about what the Jesus Teachings point to in Fact. That does not mean they, the Abrahamic religions, are bad, only that they are incomplete in the totality of things. Their incompleteness is revealed in their contentious relations despite claiming the same God.
Also it is an error to attribute duration to God. Duration is change, even if there seems no appearance of it. Christianism, even in its treatment of the Trinity, is yet dealing with an aspect of God in Creation, and from the interpretive mind set of humanity and the limits that go with that.
~It seems to me you castigate religious thought and yet your quote is a religious thought. I do not castigate religious thought as a scaffolding. Look at the magnificence of Aquinas! But he, at the end, stepped off the “straw” of his scaffolding and dwelt in the structure, wishing to burn thereafter his own work. This is not uncommon after realization and has occurred in many traditions of Wisdom.
~If I am misunderstanding your meanings explain them to me. Done
~Your quote from the Duay Rheims Bible talks about how much Christ used parables to explain things to His Disciples, I believe this is because stories are a classical way of teaching, a way that people easily remember. Parables allow for layers of meaning, personal and universal…but your preceding statement seems to indicate that you do not believe in Universal truth or truth outsideof (sic) the realm of 'self"…that is folly and a lie. A parable can be personally interprreted (sic) but it still has the aspect of universal truth which would be applicable to all. You get the awareness prize: you are the first to comment on that reference! Your last sentence there is painfully true, as well as what went before it, save your conjecture about my statement. But the point of Mark 4:33,34 is that Jesus taught the public in parables so as to protect them from hidden meaning which they may not be ready for. He then took his disciples aside and explained to them the highest meaning in fullness. This, again, is common in many Wisdom traditions. To gain some insight into this, you might find a copy of Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man: an interpretation of some of the parables and miracles of Christ, and Harry Benjamin’s Basic Self Knowledge. The preface to the latter is readable on Amazon and is of relevant interest to christianists.
~Satan would love it if everyone was running around claiming their “Self” as the divinity.
Sounds like the same apple offered Eve in the Garden to me… Again, that usage of “Self” is not personal. Yes, there is the case of another story tragically misunderstood by personalization. You, Angel, are the Garden and your own Adam and Eve. The personalization of Divinity as something you are disconnected from by sin is the seed of satanic misunderstanding. Remember, the root of “sin” means to miss the point, just a “metanoia” is wrongly translated as “repent”. In that wise, the story of Lucifer is worth re-evaluation as well as to its actual intent. Similarly, the idea of Baptism is not to wash away sin, but claiming our impersonal Divinity as the root of our way of life and expression. Immense volumes of arguments about morality can be flushed away by understanding this properly. That is why Baptism was reserved for adults capable of metaphysical insight. In the descent from meaning into fear it became a popularized ritual which included children not yet capable of insight, who had not yet left the “garden” of innocence.
With that information, go back and read the original “quote” and see if it doesn’t make more sense.
Thank you for your inquiry. I have answered because you asked. May your “handle” (screen name) on these fora gain new and deeper meaning for you in the fullness of time.
~Can you please give the exact sourxe (sic) for this quote…if you are going to give a quote, give who you are quoting… Certainly. That statement is, in those words, original with me.
~Explain why this source would capitalize “Self”,=== my concern is that you are raising “Self” to a Divinity… Yes, this is a common error with speakers of English who do not understand the esoteric meaning of the word “Self,” That word being equatable or synonymous with Divinity. It is similar to the widespread misunderstanding of the word “I.” Many have commented on this, but my favorite is from Robert A. Heinlein, who said “In English only the first person singular (present tense) of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” This misunderstanding leads to tragic misinterpretations of Identity statements in the Bible. A far deeper and exhaustive treatment of this idea, with examples, is to be found in David Bohm’s Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in the prefatory material of books by Dr. K.G. Mills.
~Answer this: If God is not an Object separate from 'self" then how is it that God existed long before any individual existed and that God would exist even if any individual did not exist and ceased to exist… Is God separate from God? The ALLNESS of God is called Self. “Individual” means, as well, “undivided” so God is the only Individual in the non-personal sense. It is only because English, being based on the premise of duality, forces mental constructs of division that the original Teaching language of parables, eg, is misunderstood and personalized where no such intention is inherent within them. Original Teaching is relevant to this idea, where most religiosity, eg the Abrahamic religions, are in the realm of the field subject/object perception. That means in the world and of it, not about what the Jesus Teachings point to in Fact. That does not mean they, the Abrahamic religions, are bad, only that they are incomplete in the totality of things. Their incompleteness is revealed in their contentious relations despite claiming the same God.
Also it is an error to attribute duration to God. Duration is change, even if there seems no appearance of it. Christianism, even in its treatment of the Trinity, is yet dealing with an aspect of God in Creation, and from the interpretive mind set of humanity and the limits that go with that.
~It seems to me you castigate religious thought and yet your quote is a religious thought. I do not castigate religious thought as a scaffolding. Look at the magnificence of Aquinas! But he, at the end, stepped off the “straw” of his scaffolding and dwelt in the structure, wishing to burn thereafter his own work. This is not uncommon after realization and has occurred in many traditions of Wisdom.
~If I am misunderstanding your meanings explain them to me. Done
~Your quote from the Duay Rheims Bible talks about how much Christ used parables to explain things to His Disciples, I believe this is because stories are a classical way of teaching, a way that people easily remember. Parables allow for layers of meaning, personal and universal…but your preceding statement seems to indicate that you do not believe in Universal truth or truth outsideof (sic) the realm of 'self"…that is folly and a lie. A parable can be personally interprreted (sic) but it still has the aspect of universal truth which would be applicable to all. You get the awareness prize: you are the first to comment on that reference! Your last sentence there is painfully true, as well as what went before it, save your conjecture about my statement. But the point of Mark 4:33,34 is that Jesus taught the public in parables so as to protect them from hidden meaning which they may not be ready for. He then took his disciples aside and explained to them the highest meaning in fullness. This, again, is common in many Wisdom traditions. To gain some insight into this, you might find a copy of Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man: an interpretation of some of the parables and miracles of Christ, and Harry Benjamin’s Basic Self Knowledge. The preface to the latter is readable on Amazon and is of relevant interest to christianists.
~Satan would love it if everyone was running around claiming their “Self” as the divinity.
Sounds like the same apple offered Eve in the Garden to me… Again, that usage of “Self” is not personal. Yes, there is the case of another story tragically misunderstood by personalization. You, Angel, are the Garden and your own Adam and Eve. The personalization of Divinity as something you are disconnected from by sin is the seed of satanic misunderstanding. Remember, the root of “sin” means to miss the point, just a “metanoia” is wrongly translated as “repent”. In that wise, the story of Lucifer is worth re-evaluation as well as to its actual intent. Similarly, the idea of Baptism is not to wash away sin, but claiming our impersonal Divinity as the root of our way of life and expression. Immense volumes of arguments about morality can be flushed away by understanding this properly. That is why Baptism was reserved for adults capable of metaphysical insight. In the descent from meaning into fear it became a popularized ritual which included children not yet capable of insight, who had not yet left the “garden” of innocence.
With that information, go back and read the original “quote” and see if it doesn’t make more sense.
Thank you for your inquiry. I have answered because you asked. May your “handle” (screen name) on these fora gain new and deeper meaning for you in the fullness of time.
L
Life_in_God
Guest
Well, Detales,I compliment you on your fine speech and definitely know my verbal skills are not any where near yours!
Detales,
I am not going to claim to be able to speak as eloquently as you do. Can I ask if you are Christian or Buddhist? I don’t know what ‘roamin’ Catholic’ would mean…
If you are Catholic (and perhaps you are), can you explain whether your discussion here of 'self" refers to the idea of a 'true self" Vs a “false self” as when some souls decide to make choices that would be incongruous with the Holiness of God, or with God’s Will, thus choosing to be separted from God (mortal sin) and thus become someone outside of God, or outside of God’s design for them as a person, thus aquiring the nature of a 'false self".
Since God does reside in a soul that has a life of grace I can understand “self” in that way as not being separate from God and yet the “self” of a creature is not “Divine”…it is a creature. Divinity is an identity that belongs to God as His innate nature. I know the Pope used the word 'divinized" in relationship to the action of grace which works to bring a soul into union with God. The difference being that to be ‘divinized’ is a transfiguring process of grace working in a created soul, while God has an uncreated nature and is the source of grace.
It is wonderful to spin beautiful sounding phrases but being able to say things so that they are comprehended by others is finer.
When Jesus spoke in parables He was using simple stories for profound meaning but He was not trying to hide His meanings or confuse his listeners. He was asking them to dwell on the words and meditate on them. He allows us to do the same and with the light of tradition and Church teaching we can mine these stories to the depth allowed us by God through His Holy Spirit.
I am not going to confuse myself with the Holy Spirit…I only hope the Holy Spirit does work in me and through me and that I am in union with God. But God never promised me that I would have any gift of being infallible…that was only promised to the Pope, so don’t tempt me or anyone with some conclusion that the ‘self’ has that same capacity. That would be Satan speaking.
And back to the topic…I was thinking today that since God can do ALL things, that it would be wrong to say God cannot in some way bring about Satan’s conversion, because then you would have limited God’s omnipotence. Since there is such a thing as an “irresistable” grace which cannot be refused by a soul…why couldn’t God provide an 'irresistable" grace that Satan could not refuse that would bring about Satan’s conversion? Can I imagine what that would be? No, but I don’t really need to, I just have to believe that God could do such a thing by the logic that God is omnipotent. Afterall, anyone who converts does so because God was the initiator. Satan, because of his angelic nature which makes his sinful choice a permanent one, would never be able to initiate his own conversion., but that doesn’t mean that God could not initiate it.
Perhaps someone here has already suggested this, in which case I apologize.
God Bless,
Life in God.
Detales,
I am not going to claim to be able to speak as eloquently as you do. Can I ask if you are Christian or Buddhist? I don’t know what ‘roamin’ Catholic’ would mean…
If you are Catholic (and perhaps you are), can you explain whether your discussion here of 'self" refers to the idea of a 'true self" Vs a “false self” as when some souls decide to make choices that would be incongruous with the Holiness of God, or with God’s Will, thus choosing to be separted from God (mortal sin) and thus become someone outside of God, or outside of God’s design for them as a person, thus aquiring the nature of a 'false self".
Since God does reside in a soul that has a life of grace I can understand “self” in that way as not being separate from God and yet the “self” of a creature is not “Divine”…it is a creature. Divinity is an identity that belongs to God as His innate nature. I know the Pope used the word 'divinized" in relationship to the action of grace which works to bring a soul into union with God. The difference being that to be ‘divinized’ is a transfiguring process of grace working in a created soul, while God has an uncreated nature and is the source of grace.
It is wonderful to spin beautiful sounding phrases but being able to say things so that they are comprehended by others is finer.
When Jesus spoke in parables He was using simple stories for profound meaning but He was not trying to hide His meanings or confuse his listeners. He was asking them to dwell on the words and meditate on them. He allows us to do the same and with the light of tradition and Church teaching we can mine these stories to the depth allowed us by God through His Holy Spirit.
I am not going to confuse myself with the Holy Spirit…I only hope the Holy Spirit does work in me and through me and that I am in union with God. But God never promised me that I would have any gift of being infallible…that was only promised to the Pope, so don’t tempt me or anyone with some conclusion that the ‘self’ has that same capacity. That would be Satan speaking.
And back to the topic…I was thinking today that since God can do ALL things, that it would be wrong to say God cannot in some way bring about Satan’s conversion, because then you would have limited God’s omnipotence. Since there is such a thing as an “irresistable” grace which cannot be refused by a soul…why couldn’t God provide an 'irresistable" grace that Satan could not refuse that would bring about Satan’s conversion? Can I imagine what that would be? No, but I don’t really need to, I just have to believe that God could do such a thing by the logic that God is omnipotent. Afterall, anyone who converts does so because God was the initiator. Satan, because of his angelic nature which makes his sinful choice a permanent one, would never be able to initiate his own conversion., but that doesn’t mean that God could not initiate it.
Perhaps someone here has already suggested this, in which case I apologize.
God Bless,
Life in God.
D
Detales
Guest
I am neither christianist nor Buddhist. “Roamin’ Catholic” is a play on “Roman” denoting my having had to leave the Church due to its inadequate resources for answering my questions relative to a profound and life transforming experience despite arduous inquiry both in its literature and its clerics. Later, after regaining some stability, I discovered a system that not only fully explained everything, including my formerly well catechized and zealous Catholicism, but a far broader scope of considerations as well. That was and is truly Catholic in the original sense of that word.
Though it is reasonable and a useful tool in the pursuit of self awareness to distinguish between a “true” and “false” self, the ordinary religious way of doing that is counterproductive in an actual “spiritual” practice, especially as you delineated. In my terminology anything attributable to person, though extant, is perforce false. The kind of consideration you propose is itself a turbulence that keeps one’s attention on limits not applicable to Soul. Person is itself “false” self. The question is, does one know that, and if so how? And if person is false, though experienced, what is True? Such an inquiry is an exceptionally revealing pursuit. Being a teacher, you might appreciate youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&feature=related as a primer in this facet of consideration. It is an amazing report of the phase of awareness we don’t ordinarily experience as described clinically by a neurosurgeon as her experience having a stroke. Very educational.
Your exposition on soul and grace is very convoluted and impractical, but standard RC fare. Simplistically put, God does not reside “in” a soul, but “as” a soul, which fact is discoverable experientially. I’m quite sure that that is what happened to Aquinas near the end. “Divinized” is a fair name for a process of transfiguration by grace. But it is not an action on a soul. It is an action on a mind that becomes, through grace, transparent to the always already pre-existing condition of the Soul. It is the feeling nature’s transformation/transfiguration that allows the appearance of change due to an elevated awareness of the experiential actuality of God as the Source of ALL. In one aspect your soul IS. In another, your experience of it is built by claiming and living attributes commensurate with the Divine. In other words, “divinization” in practice is a transmutation of from i-dentity to "I"dentity, if we keep in mind the unfortunate limitation of the common English speaker’s ignorance of the intended use of “I” in parable and Wisdom teaching.
I agree that it is wonderful to spin beautiful sounding phrases, but they are far more than that. They are statements gleaned from my experience. Those who have had experiences like mine, some far more profound, easily understand what I am saying because they have the same referents. In the mean time what I say might simply be to others a charge to change discovered later, or an irritant. Or they mean nothing to the listener. Any of those is attributable to the listener, and just fine.
“When Jesus spoke in parables He was using simple stories for profound meaning but He was not trying to hide His meanings or confuse his listeners. He was asking them to dwell on the words and meditate on them. He allows us to do the same and with the light of tradition and Church teaching we can mine these stories to the depth allowed us by God through His Holy Spirit.” Though there is yet another step, your understanding of parables is spot on. If there is “hidden” meaning in them, it is hidden due to the lack of interest and diligence on the part of the listener. The total transparency of a parable is a precious gift. And yet, Jesus is said to have taken His disciples aside and revealed things in fullness.
"…so don’t tempt me or anyone with some conclusion that the ‘self’ has that same capacity. That would be Satan speaking. I guess in your understanding that might be so. However, that you could say that in such a way, if you are referring to my use of “Self,” it is clear that you are yet in the trap that English so cleverly provides as I described in my last post. The Self I refer to is not you, me, anyone, or person. It does not apply or work in your statement in its actual meaning. It has, as I pointed to, an entirely different meaning.
And back to the topic, the “divinization” referred to earlier is itself the conversion of “Satan” as played out in your own soul propensity. “Satan” is not “a” person. “Satan” is “person” itself as that aspect of your awareness that has you divided against yourself. That brings us back to the “quote” that started your questions. And yes, there is an “irresistible” grace. I could not speak this way had I not received such. I didn’t personally do it. It happened. Perhaps some day you may see how that can be.
And yes, God is the initiator and end of ALL.
Though it is reasonable and a useful tool in the pursuit of self awareness to distinguish between a “true” and “false” self, the ordinary religious way of doing that is counterproductive in an actual “spiritual” practice, especially as you delineated. In my terminology anything attributable to person, though extant, is perforce false. The kind of consideration you propose is itself a turbulence that keeps one’s attention on limits not applicable to Soul. Person is itself “false” self. The question is, does one know that, and if so how? And if person is false, though experienced, what is True? Such an inquiry is an exceptionally revealing pursuit. Being a teacher, you might appreciate youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU&feature=related as a primer in this facet of consideration. It is an amazing report of the phase of awareness we don’t ordinarily experience as described clinically by a neurosurgeon as her experience having a stroke. Very educational.
Your exposition on soul and grace is very convoluted and impractical, but standard RC fare. Simplistically put, God does not reside “in” a soul, but “as” a soul, which fact is discoverable experientially. I’m quite sure that that is what happened to Aquinas near the end. “Divinized” is a fair name for a process of transfiguration by grace. But it is not an action on a soul. It is an action on a mind that becomes, through grace, transparent to the always already pre-existing condition of the Soul. It is the feeling nature’s transformation/transfiguration that allows the appearance of change due to an elevated awareness of the experiential actuality of God as the Source of ALL. In one aspect your soul IS. In another, your experience of it is built by claiming and living attributes commensurate with the Divine. In other words, “divinization” in practice is a transmutation of from i-dentity to "I"dentity, if we keep in mind the unfortunate limitation of the common English speaker’s ignorance of the intended use of “I” in parable and Wisdom teaching.
I agree that it is wonderful to spin beautiful sounding phrases, but they are far more than that. They are statements gleaned from my experience. Those who have had experiences like mine, some far more profound, easily understand what I am saying because they have the same referents. In the mean time what I say might simply be to others a charge to change discovered later, or an irritant. Or they mean nothing to the listener. Any of those is attributable to the listener, and just fine.
“When Jesus spoke in parables He was using simple stories for profound meaning but He was not trying to hide His meanings or confuse his listeners. He was asking them to dwell on the words and meditate on them. He allows us to do the same and with the light of tradition and Church teaching we can mine these stories to the depth allowed us by God through His Holy Spirit.” Though there is yet another step, your understanding of parables is spot on. If there is “hidden” meaning in them, it is hidden due to the lack of interest and diligence on the part of the listener. The total transparency of a parable is a precious gift. And yet, Jesus is said to have taken His disciples aside and revealed things in fullness.
"…so don’t tempt me or anyone with some conclusion that the ‘self’ has that same capacity. That would be Satan speaking. I guess in your understanding that might be so. However, that you could say that in such a way, if you are referring to my use of “Self,” it is clear that you are yet in the trap that English so cleverly provides as I described in my last post. The Self I refer to is not you, me, anyone, or person. It does not apply or work in your statement in its actual meaning. It has, as I pointed to, an entirely different meaning.
And back to the topic, the “divinization” referred to earlier is itself the conversion of “Satan” as played out in your own soul propensity. “Satan” is not “a” person. “Satan” is “person” itself as that aspect of your awareness that has you divided against yourself. That brings us back to the “quote” that started your questions. And yes, there is an “irresistible” grace. I could not speak this way had I not received such. I didn’t personally do it. It happened. Perhaps some day you may see how that can be.
And yes, God is the initiator and end of ALL.
- Status