What to do with new age book

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cattitude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
Humm…we do not say such …
Click to expand...
Little one asked me to prove that God and the afterlife do not exist. This is impossible to disprove. It is also impossible to disprove ghosts or anything else that is other worldly. How can you disprove something that by definition cannot be seen?
 
jimjack said:
Little one asked me to prove that God and the afterlife do not exist. This is impossible to disprove. It is also impossible to disprove ghosts or anything else that is other worldly. How can you disprove something that by definition cannot be seen?
Click to expand...
But if it is there, even though we cannot see it, does our being able to prove it or not prove it dismiss its ontological reality if it is there?

I guess I am asking you, if one needs proof to know something is really there or not there. I am trying to understand where you are coming from and by no means am meaning to be confrontive.

Thanks.

Little One0307

BTW, this is an an eye-opening thread to say the least.
 
jimjack said:
Little one asked me to prove that God and the afterlife do not exist. This is impossible to disprove. It is also impossible to disprove ghosts or anything else that is other worldly.
Click to expand...
It is important to note that the idea that everything must be “empircally proved” in some empirical test is an attempt to flatten the various kinds and degrees of knowledge to one sort.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet Act i Scene 5)

…or *empirical *science…
 
Little_One0307 said:
But if it is there, even though we cannot see it, does our being able to prove it or not prove it dismiss its ontological reality if it is there?

I guess I am asking you, if one needs proof to know something is really there or not there. I am trying to understand where you are coming from and by no means am meaning to be confrontive.

Thanks.

Little One0307

BTW, this is an an eye-opening thread to say the least.
Click to expand...
If God exists, which is a possibility, obviously he doesn’t need to be seen. There is one answer as to whether the Christian God exists or not…it is either yes or no. I see the lack of evidence for God as a good case against his existence. Also the fact that religion, for the most part, has been spread by the indoctrination of children by their parents and by society.
 
Bookcat said:
It is important to note that the idea that everything must be “empircally proved” in some empirical test is an attempt to flatten the various kinds and degrees of knowledge to one sort.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet Act i Scene 5)

…or *empirical *science…
Click to expand...
I don’t think everything needs to be empirically proven to exist. Can you prove the existence of different emotions empirically? I’m not so sure. I just think with the lack of evidence I think it is more rational to take the position of agnostic/atheist than believer.
 
All Creation in its existence, its order, its beauty, its greatness, its smallness… entire… shows forth the truth of the existence of God.

All one has to do is look upon it, truly look upon it, to see.
 
Bookcat said:
It is important to note that the idea that everything must be “empircally proved” in some empirical test is an attempt to flatten the various kinds and degrees of knowledge to one sort.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet Act i Scene 5)

…or *empirical *science…
Click to expand...
Could it, empiricism, also not be a mechanism to avoid the thought of morality as well? I see the empiricism and Moral relativity runs hand in hand, what do you think. Perhaps it is adhered to as a means of justification so that one can live their life as they wish. Your thoughts are quite welcome.

I am reading Kreeft’s book on moral relativity and wondered if this was related.

Little One0307
 
jimjack said:
If God exists, which is a possibility, obviously he doesn’t need to be seen. There is one answer as to whether the Christian God exists or not…it is either yes or no. I see the lack of evidence for God as a good case against his existence. Also the fact that religion, for the most part, has been spread by the indoctrination of children by their parents and by society.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing with me where you are coming from. And your last post as well. I understand where you are coming from and your belief.
 
jimjack said:
I don’t think everything needs to be empirically proven to exist. Can you prove the existence of different emotions empirically? I’m not so sure. I just think with the lack of evidence I think it is more rational to take the position of agnostic/atheist than believer.
Click to expand...
The reduction of all knowledge to “emprical” evidence…is of course to strip life of much of its joy and leave much of reality out of life.

But I am still waiting for the lab tests to come back for my wife to see if she really loves me…she keeps telling me so…

I do not find in any case that there is a lack of evidence.

The very fact that I would bother to look for evidence is already sterling evidence.
 
Little_One0307 said:
Could it, empiricism, also not be a mechanism to avoid the thought of morality as well? I see the empiricism and Moral relativity runs hand in hand, what do you think. Perhaps it is adhered to as a means of justification so that one can live their life as they wish. Your thoughts are quite welcome.

I am reading Kreeft’s book on moral relativity and wondered if this was related.

Little One0307
Click to expand...
Sure.
 
“In the opening words of his Gospel, Saint John sums up the essential meaning of that account in this single statement: “In the beginning was the Word”. In effect, the creation account that we listened to earlier is characterized by the regularly recurring phrase: “And God said …” The world is a product of the Word, of the Logos, as Saint John expresses it, using a key term from the Greek language. “Logos” means “reason”, “sense”, “word”. It is not reason pure and simple, but creative Reason, that speaks and communicates itself. It is Reason that both is and creates sense. The creation account tells us, then, that the world is a product of creative Reason. Hence it tells us that, far from there being an absence of reason and freedom at the origin of all things, the source of everything is creative Reason, love, and freedom. Here we are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis. As believers we answer, with the creation account and with Saint John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom. Hence it is good to be a human person. It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”

~Pope Benedict XVI 23 April 2010 Homily
 
jimjack said:
I wasn’t saying that new ageism was a cure to scrupulosity. I was just saying that the Dalai Lama and many other Buddhists do not believe in God and are extremely happy. The supposed happiest man in the world is a Buddhist monk that does not believe in the Christian God. So who is a Christian to come in and say that he is not really happy? How ignorant and misinformed.

The point I was trying to make was that there are plenty of people that are happy without a belief in God and plenty of people that are completely miserable that do believe in God. So if God is the only way to true happiness, there must be some other definition of happiness that I am not aware of.
Click to expand...
You do have a very good point. Maybe its the correct amount of Chemicals in the brain. There are many that suffer from imbalances who do suffer emotional problems. Perhaps the Buddhist practice of Meditation, works on this? I dont know. I do know however, weather it is Buddhist, Kabbalistic or Catholic meditation exercises, they do Work, and lead to a more rewarding mentally stable life. 👍
 
jimjack said:
The thing is that I do not believe in Jesus or God. In fact I believe we are here on earth and once we die, that is it. So when I see people get so caught up on what an imaginary deity (in my eyes at least) thinks about their masturbation habits I can’t help but shake my head at it.
Click to expand...
I thought this comment was quite ironic given that the Dalai Lama has similar views regarding sexuality as the Catholic Church, e.g. that masturbation is “inappropriate”. In fact, Buddhism, from what I understand, encourages renouncing sensual pleasures. So, it seems that atheistic Buddhists are just as caught up on thinking what Buddha thought about masturbation.
 
Since we have the fullness of grace and everything :=) comes with being in the Catholic Church, then why would we want to go and look for other methods of being happy OUTSIDE of the Church? I am well content to stay within the treasures of the Church, it would take more than several life times to exhuast those treasures [and I do not think they can be exhausted as they are infinite].

Little One0307
 
Bookcat said:
Or rather can be dangerous and even occult…(depending on what is being spoken of in each instance…)

Important document in regards to Christian Meditation etc

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfmed.htm

and New Age

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
Click to expand...
On a side note. Many Christians as well as Catholics study Kabbalah. It is part of our heritage believe it or not. From our Mother religion Judaism. That being said, It is a very good Idea to only study it academically and not practice the meditative techniques unless being guided by an experienced practioner. It used to be, that the Zohar could only be studied by Jews over the age of 40. It is now more open, but certain practices CAN be dangerous. Its not much different than owning a fire arm. Used properly they are very good tools. Used incorrectly they can have devestating consequences. Peace. 🙂
 
Cattitude said:
I thought this comment was quite ironic given that the Dalai Lama has similar views regarding sexuality as the Catholic Church, e.g. that masturbation is “inappropriate”. In fact, Buddhism, from what I understand, encourages renouncing sensual pleasures. So, it seems that atheistic Buddhists are just as caught up on thinking what Buddha thought about masturbation.
Click to expand...
You are looking at Buddhism through the lens of a Catholic. Buddhism doesn’t breed scrupulosity IMO because the religion doesn’t focus on “sin” like Christianity. It isn’t really a Buddhist practice to dwell on your shortcomings which is something that seems to be common place within Catholicism. Doing bad things is completely different within Eastern religions.
 
benidict said:
On a side note. Many Christians as well as Catholics study Kabbalah. It is part of our heritage believe it or not. From our Mother religion Judaism. That being said, It is a very good Idea to only study it academically and not practice the meditative techniques unless being guided by an experienced practioner. It used to be, that the Zohar could only be studied by Jews over the age of 40. It is now more open, but certain practices CAN be dangerous. Its not much different than owning a fire arm. Used properly they are very good tools. Used incorrectly they can have devestating consequences. Peace. 🙂
Click to expand...
First off …Catholics are Christians (we have been since the name was coined in Antioch…(but I know what you meant)

It may be that they do…but that does not per se make it safe or good…(though perhaps a scholar may have good reason to study on it)

Nor a practice I would think the Church recommends…

This may be helpful from a CA apologist forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=374917&highlight=Kabbalah
 
Little_One0307 said:
Since we have the fullness of grace and everything :=) comes with being in the Catholic Church, then why would we want to go and look for other methods of being happy OUTSIDE of the Church? I am well content to stay within the treasures of the Church, it would take more than several life times to exhuast those treasures [and I do not think they can be exhausted as they are infinite].

Little One0307
Click to expand...
I personally think that using Buddhist meditative practices as a base for Catholic meditation would help virtually all Catholics. Meditation has been proven to make people happier which in turn makes people act more like Jesus. In all honesty, the act of meditation is reasonably non denominational depending on how you do it. You could easily meditate on Jesus’ love while using different Buddhist meditation practices as a base. You can’t argue that meditating on Jesus’ love and compassion could be dangerous or evil, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top