Supernatural: Catholic and Non-Catholic

[PRmerger]

There is nothing wrong with you believing anything you chose to believe PR,

Well, I think we can agree, then, that some things you and I believe we believe *on this basis ALONE: * because we believe what we were told.

We trust the person/entity/organization which gave us this info.

Unless you have checked out every single capital in the world, you trust your 4th grade teacher when she tells you that Manila is the capital of the Philippines (et al).

Unless you have actually seen a streptococcus bacterium, you accept your high school science teacher’s assertion that it is circular and stains positive with Gram stains.

Unless you have actually witnessed the creation of the human person, you ought to accept the Church’s teaching on it.

Just sayin’…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From PRMerger:

I think it is a metaphor for all of us who want to change the particulars of morality to suit our own palates.

Good Morning PRMerger: I wonder what the morals would be in a perfect garden, and what it was in particular that they wanted. This is still rather puzzling.

If your God happens to agree with every single thing you believe, Gary, then you have created a god in your own image. Just like A and E. You have attempted to eat from the Tree.

I have always felt the same way about that. Of course when one person thinks that way, it’s called delusional. If a handful of people are thinking that way it’s called a cult. When a lot of people think that way, it’s called a religion. Nobody actually knows much at all about what God is, or about what we are, or even what any of this is all about.

Remember, it’s just logically inconsistent that God would happen to have the very same views you do on…say, abortion, homosexuality, sex, women’s ordination, open Eucharist,divorce and remarriage, etc etc etc.

But in considering that there was no abortion, homosexuality, sex, women’s ordination, open Eucharist, divorce and remarriage in the Garden of Eden, the question remains as to the particulars of what Adam and Eve wanted to change with regard to morality.

If you haven’t changed your views to conform to what God has revealed, then I propose that you are worshipping at the altar of the god of the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty.

What God has revealed to me is you and me and the world around us. And that’s enough for me.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Well, I think we can agree, then, that some things you and I believe we believe *on this basis ALONE: * because we believe what we were told.

We trust the person/entity/organization which gave us this info.

Unless you have checked out every single capital in the world, you trust your 4th grade teacher when she tells you that Manila is the capital of the Philippines (et al).

Unless you have actually seen a streptococcus bacterium, you accept your high school science teacher’s assertion that it is circular and stains positive with Gram stains.

Unless you have actually witnessed the creation of the human person, you ought to accept the Church’s teaching on it.

Just sayin’…

Good Morning again PR Merger: Most of us learned early on that we had to apply some scrutiny in regards to what we were taught. For instance, I was told by reliable sources that a man in a red suit came down my chimney and brought toys every year, and that a big rabbit brought me a basket of candy in the Spring. In school I was taught that the United States won the Second World War, but I lived in a multicultural city and met British children who had been taught that the British won the war, and Russian kids who had been taught that the Russians were the reason the Axis fell. I came to be of the opinion that there was some truth and some falsehood to all of them.

By the age of 7, after the Santa Claus disclosure, I came to be rather skeptical of some other things I had been taught. Specifically, a bearded man who was going to reward me for being good and punish me for being bad at Christmas seemed very similar to what I was being told in church, and while I reasoned that there probably was a God and a Jesus, I thought it might be best to have my own experience of them. Which is probably why you and I were born. To have our own experiences and create our own stories and live them out as best we can.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good Morning again PR Merger: Most of us learned early on that we had to apply some scrutiny in regards to what we were taught. For instance, I was told by reliable sources that a man in a red suit came down my chimney and brought toys every year, and that a big rabbit brought me a basket of candy in the Spring. In school I was taught that the United States won the Second World War, but I lived in a multicultural city and met British children who had been taught that the British won the war, and Russian kids who had been taught that the Russians were the reason the Axis fell. I came to be of the opinion that there was some truth and some falsehood to all of them.

By the age of 7, after the Santa Claus disclosure, I came to be rather skeptical of some other things I had been taught. Specifically, a bearded man who was going to reward me for being good and punish me for being bad at Christmas seemed very similar to what I was being told in church, and while I reasoned that there probably was a God and a Jesus, I thought it might be best to have my own experience of them. Which is probably why you and I were born. To have our own experiences and create our own stories and live them out as best we can.

Thank you,
Gary

But at some point, “reliable sources” admitted that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were actually pseudonyms for Mom and Dad, right? So, you didn’t actually stop trusting the “reliable sources”; you were simply given more information.

Has any “reliable source” told you that God does not exist and that Jesus did not die upon the cross? If so, how does that square with your own experiences and your own reasoning?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

But at some point, “reliable sources” admitted that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were actually pseudonyms for Mom and Dad, right? So, you didn’t actually stop trusting the “reliable sources”; you were simply given more information.

Has any “reliable source” told you that God does not exist and that Jesus did not die upon the cross? If so, how does that square with your own experiences and your own reasoning?

God Morning Randy: In the case of religion, there is no way to know except through your own experience. In the case of Jesus, he was an historical figure and it is my belief that he died on the cross. I probably differ from your belief with regard to the reasons that he died on the cross. With regard to his message, I believe he probably said things that are roughly what we have documented in the gospels. As for the meaning of what He said, I can tell you that my understanding of them is most certainly different from what the church teaches in a number of ways. If we are going to talk about God, we need to be honest, so I am being honest.

Thank you
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Good Morning PRMerger: I wonder what the morals would be in a perfect garden, and what it was in particular that they wanted. This is still rather puzzling.

It is perfectly reasonable to wonder.

I think if you insert your own particular wishes for where you wish to usurp the authority that belongs to God alone, that might provide some satisfaction to you.

 

[PRmerger]

I have always felt the same way about that. Of course when one person thinks that way, it’s called delusional. If a handful of people are thinking that way it’s called a cult. When a lot of people think that way, it’s called a religion.

Certainly. If it’s a man-made religion.

But if it’s actually The Way, the way that God provided as a means for apprehending the Numinous, then it’s astonishingly arrogant and stupid to reject this Way.

 

[PRmerger]

What God has revealed to me is you and me and the world around us.

You know this, how? Through private revelation? Through Reason? Through Faith? Faith in…whom? Or in what?

 

[PRmerger]

Good Morning again PR Merger: Most of us learned early on that we had to apply some scrutiny in regards to what we were taught. For instance, I was told by reliable sources that a man in a red suit came down my chimney and brought toys every year, and that a big rabbit brought me a basket of candy in the Spring. In school I was taught that the United States won the Second World War, but I lived in a multicultural city and met British children who had been taught that the British won the war, and Russian kids who had been taught that the Russians were the reason the Axis fell. I came to be of the opinion that there was some truth and some falsehood to all of them.

By the age of 7, after the Santa Claus disclosure, I came to be rather skeptical of some other things I had been taught. Specifically, a bearded man who was going to reward me for being good and punish me for being bad at Christmas seemed very similar to what I was being told in church, and while I reasoned that there probably was a God and a Jesus, I thought it might be best to have my own experience of them. Which is probably why you and I were born. To have our own experiences and create our own stories and live them out as best we can.

Thank you,
Gary

No doubt.

But in the interest of good, fruitful, honest discussion, can you acknowledge something for me?

Can you acknowledge that you accept that there are a great many things that you accept based on this reason alone: you believe the person who told you this fact.

Can you indulge me and answer the above with a “Yes, I accept that most facts I believe I believe because I trust in the party that told me this fact”

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It is perfectly reasonable to wonder.

I think if you insert your own particular wishes for where you wish to usurp the authority that belongs to God alone, that might provide some satisfaction to you.

Good Evening PR Merger: Not every question about godly authority is an attack on God. As far as satisfaction is concerned, having our way doesn’t make is happy for long. Finding satisfaction with “what is” makes it possible to be happy. When I say “what is” I am not talking about God’s will or someone else’s will. I am talking about the satisfaction of engaging in experience without expectation.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

You know this, how? Through private revelation? Through Reason? Through Faith? Faith in…whom? Or in what?

None of the above PR. It’s not some archaic and mystical truth encoded on a codex under a rock in far off Byzantium or something like that. It’s very simple really. God is revealed to us through one another and in the world around us.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

No doubt.

But in the interest of good, fruitful, honest discussion, can you acknowledge something for me?

Can you acknowledge that you accept that there are a great many things that you accept based on this reason alone: you believe the person who told you this fact.

Can you indulge me and answer the above with a “Yes, I accept that most facts I believe I believe because I trust in the party that told me this fact”

Yes, insofar as the trusted source is telling me something that makes sense. We also have to take into account that while there are people whom I trust without question as to their honesty, there is no one whom I trust without question with regards to what they know or what they believe. The final judgment as to what I believe is my own ability to reason.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, insofar as the trusted source is telling me something that makes sense.

Thank you for indulging me, friend. I appreciate it.

I can’t tell you how many times I have been in dialogue and asked for some sort of similar acknowledgement and have been thwarted by the other poster’s inability to offer a basic affirmation of my point.

 

[PRmerger]

Good Evening PR Merger: Not every question about godly authority is an attack on God.

Indeed.

As far as satisfaction is concerned, having our way doesn’t make is happy for long. Finding satisfaction with “what is” makes it possible to be happy. When I say “what is” I am not talking about God’s will or someone else’s will. I am talking about the satisfaction of engaging in experience without expectation.

Thank you,
Gary

Sure.

 

[PRmerger]

God is revealed to us through one another and in the world around us.

Thank you,
Gary

Indeed.

It is the part about the “through one another” that you are relying on someone else to get your data.

Sometimes, that “someone else” is the Church.

For example, there is no other way for you to know that we are each made in the image and likeness of God, except through revelation.

We can, of course, reason our way to a belief in a Creator, without a single piece of revelation. But we cannot get to the next step which is: we are made in His image, without the Word of God telling us so.

 

[PRmerger]

The final judgment as to what I believe is my own ability to reason.

Thank you,
Gary

Curious–do you reject the Trinity?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Indeed.

It is the part about the “through one another” that you are relying on someone else to get your data.

Good afternoon PR Merger: I didn’t actually mean getting my data from other people as would be the case if other people were telling me about God. What I meant by “through one another” is that this is a direct experience of God in the world around us.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Curious–do you reject the Trinity?

Good Afternoon again PR Merger: The Trinity is a linguistic tile that has been placed on something much larger in its true nature, in an attempt to seal it with an epoxy of syntax. Therefore, when you say Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I have a mental image of a hoary headed old man with a white beard, and a handsome yet oddly European looking Palestinian gentleman with one hand over his chest displaying a heart that is on fire, accompanied by a dove with beams of light emanating downward from it.

I have not found these images useful in gaining any sort of connection with God, whose true image I have found to be countless in its permutations. In fact, I think it’s a very limiting idea that reduces something you can experience directly into a set of far-off mental images. Therefore, I have more success in seeing God in all things rather than try and compartmentalize it into three things that are one thing. Instead, I see it as one thing that can be seen in all things.

In short, I don’t think you have to know anything whatsoever, or to be able to name particular characters to have a direct relationship with God.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Good afternoon PR Merger: I didn’t actually mean getting my data from other people as would be the case if other people were telling me about God.

Is there some other way you know that Jesus said, this, except through the fact that you are accepting this data from some “other people”?

Originally posted by Gary: Everyone is already there. Few see it. I don’t think anyone “gets” to heaven, because no one has to go anywhere to attain it. Jesus was clear on this:

"“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

In this one statement, Jesus makes it unambiguously clear that heaven is an interior plane of existence.

 

[gmcbroom]

Curious. Is this a thread about the use of reason? Or is it a a thread on miracles and faith? That faith can be reasonable is true yet this thread is about miracles not about Adam and eve. Bring on the miracles or I suggest the thread should be closed as it has been thoroughly derailed.