Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spiritualwrrior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Messing with false religions such as Buddhism is inviting the unholy into your life.
Odd.

Is this doctrine approved by your Magisterium?

Because you see there is:

1.) What you said, which sounds like pretty classic Augustine.

2.) What Karl Rahner (Vatican II credentials and all) said, ie: Anonymous Christianity which conflicts directly what you said.

3.) What Pope Benedict’s work Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religion related, which stands somewhere between what you said and what Karl Rahner said. It also happens to be closer to the Orthodox Church’s viewpoint: ie: the Noah’s Ark analogy.

4.) What Thomas Merton, Robert Kennedy SJ, and Swami Abhishiktananda/Fr. Henri Le Saux did… (which may very well have been sold the farm).

A large bandwidth of opinion… as an outsider however i’m inclined to believe the guy who helped shape Vatican II or the guy sitting on Peter’s Chair. 😉
 
Odd.

Is this doctrine approved by your Magisterium?

Because you see there is:

1.) What you said, which sounds like pretty classic Augustine.

2.) What Karl Rahner (Vatican II credentials and all) said, ie: Anonymous Christianity which conflicts directly what you said.

3.) What Pope Benedict’s work Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religion related, which stands somewhere between what you said and what Karl Rahner said. It also happens to be closer to the Orthodox Church’s viewpoint: ie: the Noah’s Ark analogy.

4.) What Thomas Merton, Robert Kennedy SJ, and Swami Abhishiktananda/Fr. Henri Le Saux did… (which may very well have been sold the farm).

A large bandwidth of opinion… as an outsider however i’m inclined to believe the guy who helped shape Vatican II or the guy sitting on Peter’s Chair. 😉
You obviously misunderstand Anonymous Christianity and HH BXVI. There are allowances for those who have never heard the truth of Christianity, for all of humanity is universally graced to a degree. But since the God-Man entered into history and founded a real Church, to reject the Church outright is to reject Him. The documents of Vatican II do not espouse some kind of religious indiferentism (and neither do Benedict or Rahner).
 
. They are in fact one in the same, and because this is so important to know, it is in fact the only commandment you were given when your people encountered God in the man Jesus, is it not?

Your friend
Sufjon
Jesus din not abrogate any part of the moral law. In fact the whole of the law depends on not only loving your neighbor but also loving God with all your heart, soul and mind. Warning others from false religions honors both of these. As far as Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, she did not stop to ask religion to offer aid, but at the same time she revealed God in her actions, and she did not engage in the worship of Buddha, or Shiva, or any of the other monster-things worshiped as “gods” in the eastern religions.
 
You obviously misunderstand Anonymous Christianity and HH BXVI. There are allowances for those who have never heard the truth of Christianity, for all of humanity is universally graced to a degree. But since the God-Man entered into history and founded a real Church, to reject the Church outright is to reject Him. The documents of Vatican II do not espouse some kind of religious indiferentism (and neither do Benedict or Rahner).
Oh quite understood - but you specifically stated that in being part of another religion one would be “is inviting the unholy into your life”

Its one thing to be indifferent, its quite another to go about explicitly underlining whole faiths as being Unholy. I’ve never quite heard/seen/read an official statement from the Curia Post-Vatican II that’s ever really gone that far.

Definitely not from the Jesuits or Franciscans. Closest thing i’ve ever heard such an opinion from are members of SSPX.

Addenum: And Opus Dei.
 
Oh quite understood - but you specifically stated that in being part of another religion one would be “is inviting the unholy into your life”

Its one thing to be indifferent, its quite another to go about explicitly underlining whole faiths as being Unholy. I’ve never quite heard/seen/read an official statement from the Curia Post-Vatican II that’s ever really gone that far.
The fullness of faith subsists in the Catholic Church alone. (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Decree on Ecumenism, Decree on Relations with Non-Christian Religions). Also something to remembered is that Vatican II did not erase any previous Dogmas—to do so is impossible.
 
The fullness of faith subsists in the Catholic Church alone. (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Decree on Ecumenism, Decree on Relations with Non-Christian Religions). Also something to remembered is that Vatican II did not erase any previous Dogmas—to do so is impossible.
Also understood - no one here is denying the church believes itself to be correct, otherwise you wouldn’t be a church anymore correct?

The question is more of tone.

Remember what Sufjon is asking about regarding “spiritual warfare” - the relations with non-Christian religions vis-a-vis your Church.

Can’t really have relations or even project a spirit of ecumenicalism if you are “at war.”

I just well, try to imagine the words you’ve uttered coming out of the mouth of Pope Benedict during a discussion with the Dalai Lama. It looks a little bit off.

A claim to the Truth is Expected. Even the Rabbi of Rome defended Benedict when he made a similar statement regarding the pre-eminence of the Church vis-a-vis the rest of the Christian world.

Ie: Pope Benedict had a right to make such a claim - he’s the head of his religion!

A claim that the other side is Unholy… that. that has certain consequences.
 
Also understood - no one here is denying the church believes itself to be correct, otherwise you wouldn’t be a church anymore correct?

The question is more of tone.

Remember what Sufjon is asking about regarding “spiritual warfare” - the relations with non-Christian religions vis-a-vis your Church.

Can’t really have relations or even project a spirit of ecumenicalism if you are “at war.”

I just well, try to imagine the words you’ve uttered coming out of the mouth of Pope Benedict during a discussion with the Dalai Lama. It looks a little bit off.

A claim to the Truth is Expected. Even the Rabbi of Rome defended Benedict when he made a similar statement regarding the pre-eminence of the Church vis-a-vis the rest of the Christian world.

A claim that the otherside is Unholy… that. that has certain consequences.
But the Pope did not accept the false religion of the Dalai Lama as True.
 
But the Pope did not accept the false religion of the Dalai Lama as True.
No one would expect him to. He is the Pope after all.

However, he nor John Paul II called up Tenzin Gyatso/Dalai Lama and said “yo, Worshiper of the Unholy, come on over. Let’s talk about working together against…” well i suppose against my “rabid uncouth cousins” as i like to call them - ie: the New Atheists.

While there’s a firm belief in one’s faith, there’s also a level of respect during these type of discussions. Its kind of the point ecumenicalism. 🙂
 
Symbols and objects would trigger certain behaviors in these patients. We had to do frequent room searches, and often patients created symbols in hidden places. I found one on the bottom of a toilet tank lid. We also had to do body searches for evidence of self mutilation. On one particular patient, there was a symbol on her leg that would actually appear and disappear. I witnessed this myself. We never did find a physiological reason for this. One night as I giving report to the night nurse, she said, “These people don’t need a doctor, they need an exorcist.” I remember the chill of that statement on that night. As nurses, we were educated in the sciences, but nothing could quite prepare us for what we witnessed there. I saw things that still haunt me to this day.
I suggest you study the model of Ferdinand Saussure. It’s a model used both in modern linguistics and semiotics. To give a rough explanation, symbols are really two things: meaning and form. A symbol may stand for something but at the same time, it isn’t that something. They are two different things.

For example, let us start first with words: The letters G, O, and D invoke in our minds the meaning, the concept, of our Almighty Creator. At the same time though, stop and think. Does this make the letters G.D.O. possess some magical holy property? Of course not. In the same manner, the letters C, A, and T have nothing to do with any part or parcel of the feline species. The connection between the two is purely artificial. We made that association. That’s how language works.

Moving on to symbols: I’m sure you are aware that the six-pointed star is both used in Judaism and at the same time, is a popular occult symbol? However, they both mean two different things (and then some, as I’ve used they symbol myself to imagine the magic circles invoked by fantasy spell casters). There’s also St. Peter’s cross. In Catholicism, we consider it a symbol of our 1st Pope’s martyrdom. Popular culture on the other hand portrays the inverted cross as a symbol of Satanism. Finally, there’s the swastika. Are you aware that Eastern Religions used that symbol centuries before the Nazis?

See it isn’t so much to do with the symbol itself and more to do with the association one has forged with it. As I’ve said before, I’ve seen and used many symbols deemed “occult” when writing and doodling in my spare time. I’m certainly not in any need of an exorcism because my associations to such symbols hardly invoke anything. 😉
Here is an interesting article on the use of talismans. Catholics are never use them:

unhealthydevotions.com/new-age/invoking-saints-with-talismans-amulets.htm
They make for cool accessories though. I’d certainly love to craft my own “talisman” though I lack the skills (not to mention I’m torn between a pentagram with a rune or some dragon head symbol).
One of the problems with objects is that you never really know what has been spiritually attached to the object before it comes into your possession. Spirit masks are an example of this. Many people collect these kinds of things from other cultures and have no idea what has been infused into these masks.

One of my friends told me about a collection of masks from different countries displayed around the walls of her boss’s office. She said every time she had to go into that office, she would hear voices, whisperings, and other sounds, but nothing to account for this. Then one of her co-workers asked her one day if she ever heard anything strange in the boss’s office. They both realized they were hearing things with no logical explanation. Both thought it was the mask collection. I’d say that is very likely.

As with Talismans and Amulets, as described in the article you linked; other objects may be connected to evil spirits. So, we have to be very careful what we bring into our homes.
Aaaaaand here we have an example of people confusing psychological aversion with actual spiritual experiences.

I’ve had episodes of fearing the dark at times (though I’ve long managed to suppress my cowardly impulses with relative ease). However that doesn’t initially stop the creepy tingling sensation I get whenever I’m alone in the dark. Does that mean I’m not alone? Nonsense. It’s all in my head and most likely, the creepy looks of spirit masks have inserted funny thoughts in your friends’ heads.

Hearing voices isn’t always a verifiable phenomenon. It is faaar different from actually seeing something move by itself and moreso, cause a little girl to walk all the way to a bridge at the edge of the neighborhood.
 
No one would expect him to. He is the Pope after all.

However, he nor John Paul II called up Tenzin Gyatso/Dalai Lama and said “yo, Worshiper of the Unholy, come on over. Let’s talk about working together against…” well i suppose against my “rabid uncouth cousins” as i like to call them - ie: the New Atheists.

While there’s a firm belief in one’s faith, there’s also a level of respect during these type of discussions. Its kind of the point ecumenicalism. 🙂
The point of ecumenism is evangelization and conversion.
 
The point of ecumenism is evangelization and conversion.
I’ll agree with you in terms of ecumenism “intra-Christian” relations.

However, between inter-faith relations are quite different. A brief summary:
The goal of interfaith dialogue is not unity in faith and worship, but mutual understanding and respect, and mutual enrichment enabling us all to respond more fully to God’s call. It includes collaboration wherever possible in response to the societal problems we commonly face. For this reason, the purpose of theological dialogue will not be to prove that one side is right and the other is wrong, but rather to explore respective positions in order to understand them better. When this is done, many prejudices, built on half-truths, will fall by the wayside
Perhaps you remember -
the Pope [JPII] bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he** kissed it as a sign of respect**.
-Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, Raphael I, FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999

Now why would you show a sign of respect if you what you think the “other side” is doing is unholy?

Unless of course its “false respect” - which would imply that the Vatican is dealing in bad faith with its interreligious partners. That is a bit of a grave accusation to deal with of course.
 
I’ll agree with you in terms of ecumenism “intra-Christian” relations.

However, between inter-faith relations are quite different. A brief summary:

Perhaps you remember -

-Chaldean Catholic Patriarch, Raphael I, FIDES News Service (June 1, 1999

Now why would you show a sign of respect if you what you think the “other side” is doing is unholy?

Unless of course its “false respect” - which would imply that the Vatican is dealing in bad faith with its interreligious partners. That is a bit of a grave accusation to deal with of course.
He did it out of a sign of respect to the giver, not the gift in itself. If it was intended as a sign for the gift itself, then that would be an admission that Islam is true. It cannot be true, as it is opposed to Christianity which is true. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Since we know that Christianity is True, as it has Truth as its very foundation (Jn 14:6), then Islam, or any non-Christian Religion cannot be True. SInce no one has the right to accept what is not True as True, then it is uncharitable to accept non-Christian religions as Truth, though they may contain some aspects of Truth, they are not in themselves True. They cannot be True because they are man-made expressions of what man thinks God is, rather than God’s self-revelation to man.
 
I suggest you study the model of Ferdinand Saussure. It’s a model used both in modern linguistics and semiotics. To give a rough explanation, symbols are really two things: meaning and form. A symbol may stand for something but at the same time, it isn’t that something. They are two different things.

For example, let us start first with words: The letters G, O, and D invoke in our minds the meaning, the concept, of our Almighty Creator. At the same time though, stop and think. Does this make the letters G.D.O. possess some magical holy property? Of course not. In the same manner, the letters C, A, and T have nothing to do with any part or parcel of the feline species. The connection between the two is purely artificial. We made that association. That’s how language works.
You’ve missed my point entirely.
IMoving on to symbols: I’m sure you are aware that the six-pointed star is both used in Judaism and at the same time, is a popular occult symbol? However, they both mean two different things (and then some, as I’ve used they symbol myself to imagine the magic circles invoked by fantasy spell casters). There’s also St. Peter’s cross. In Catholicism, we consider it a symbol of our 1st Pope’s martyrdom. Popular culture on the other hand portrays the inverted cross as a symbol of Satanism. Finally, there’s the swastika. Are you aware that Eastern Religions used that symbol centuries before the Nazis?
I am aware. The Swastika goes back to ancient paganism and is actually a type of cross, which, like the ankh, predates Christianity. Christians adopted the ankh. The Christian symbol of the fish was also used in pagan cultures, long before it was adopted by Christianity, and on and on it goes. Most of this is well known among Christians, and I’m sure you could find most of this information on Wikipedia.

This does not negate the infusion of spirits into objects or the possibility that spirits may attach themselves to objects or symbols, or that people in certain cults can be programed to response a particular way to an object or a symbol.
ISee it isn’t so much to do with the symbol itself and more to do with the association one has forged with it. As I’ve said before, I’ve seen and used many symbols deemed “occult” when writing and doodling in my spare time. I’m certainly not in any need of an exorcism because my associations to such symbols hardly invoke anything. 😉
Like all of us, you are free to do whatever you wish. 🙂
I. . . . .Aaaaaand here we have an example of people confusing psychological aversion with actual spiritual experiences.

I’ve had episodes of fearing the dark at times (though I’ve long managed to suppress my cowardly impulses with relative ease). However that doesn’t initially stop the creepy tingling sensation I get whenever I’m alone in the dark. Does that mean I’m not alone? Nonsense. It’s all in my head and most likely, the creepy looks of spirit masks have inserted funny thoughts in your friends’ heads.

Hearing voices isn’t always a verifiable phenomenon. It is faaar different from actually seeing something move by itself and moreso, cause a little girl to walk all the way to a bridge at the edge of the neighborhood.
As I said before:
Lost Wanderer,
I understand that having a statue of Buddha does not make one a Buddhist. I have had some disturbing experiences with spirits and objects, which I won’t go into on this thread. People who have these kinds of experiences understand. Some, even fellow Christians, who have not had these experiences, can sometimes be either dismissive or judgmental.
You may never accept anything I have said, unless you get your own glimpse into the spiritual realm. There is a battle going on whether or not one can see it.

Peace to you,
Anna
 
Jesus din not abrogate any part of the moral law. In fact the whole of the law depends on not only loving your neighbor but also loving God with all your heart, soul and mind. Warning others from false religions honors both of these. As far as Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, she did not stop to ask religion to offer aid, but at the same time she revealed God in her actions, and she did not engage in the worship of Buddha, or Shiva, or any of the other monster-things worshiped as “gods” in the eastern religions.
If you are seeing monster things in the way God has expressed Himself to others, they are a product of the monsters within yourself. I don’t see monsters anywhere, nor do I see demons. I absolutely have no fear of such things. In my faith, I am taught that I belong to God. In your faith, that all seems rather tenuous and conditional. Kind of like "you can be in my kingdom if you play my game, and in turn you play that game to get into the kingdom. That is not spirituality, nor is it love. God’s love is unconditional and he loses no creature. Such a God who could lose what He loves would be little more than a cosmic bafoon.

Seeing such things as demons and monsters appears to be the domain of **your **religion, not mine. They live in you, and nowhere else. What one sees is a reflection of what is in oneself.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
If you are seeing monster things in the way God has expressed Himself to others, they are a product of the monsters within yourself. I don’t see monsters anywhere, nor do I see demons. I absolutely have no fear of such things. In my faith, I am taught that I belong to God. In your faith, that all seems rather tenuous and conditional. Kind of like "you can be in my kingdom if you play my game, and in turn you play that game to get into the kingdom. That is not spirituality, nor is it love. God’s love is unconditional and he loses no creature. Such a God who could lose what He loves would be little more than a cosmic bafoon.

Seeing such things as demons and monsters appears to be the domain of **your **religion, not mine. They live in you, and nowhere else. What one sees is a reflection of what is in oneself.

Your friend
Sufjon
Reality is not subjective. Things are what they are. There is one God in three persons. No more, no less. It is this one God who sent His son in the world to establish the New Covenant and extend kinship to humanity. What other religion extends familial love to the faithful?
 
Reality is not subjective. Things are what they are. There is one God in three persons. No more, no less. It is this one God who sent His son in the world to establish the New Covenant and extend kinship to humanity. What other religion extends familial love to the faithful?
What other religion is so full of conditions and limitations to it’s familial love? God is not subject to limits and conditions, and He doesn’t impose them on you. What is imposed on you is entirely the machinations of the human mind applied to the things that an incarnation of God said and did whilst He was among you in human form. Being among us in human form is nothing new either. New to Christians, but not new to everyone.

As for reality vs subjectivity, what proof do you have that what you have embraced as reality is any more real than what someone else has taken to be reality? I hear the words of Jesus and see one thing. You hear them and hear something else. Listing a succession of people back to Paul or whomever you like doesn’t make you right. It simply makes you able to list the names of people who thought they were right, or wanted you to think so at least. Because they told you they were divinely inspired is not cause to take it that they were or were not. You cannot know their motives, ability to comprehend what they saw or didn’t see, or much else other than what they told you. yet you chose to believe it. You take it to be reality, but I see another reality. You can cite sources back 2,000 years that say you are right. I can cite sources back 6,000 years that say I am right. My version allows you the space to be right, and yours is more limited in what it allows. More limited doesn’t mean more right. It means more limited. In this case, the more limited faction is trying to confine God to one reality, because one reality is easier to comprehend or more comfortable. It is not necessarily how things are, and God needn’t be confined to one reality or confined to anything else for that matter. Only your mind is confined to that. In my 6.000 year old religion, God says there are many realities, all of which belong to Him. In your 2,000 year old religion, there seems to be but one. It does not allow for the existence of what others see as reality, while my religion allows your reality to exist. Which is more likely to be a product of a real God in a real universe? That which is limited and tunnelized in scope, or that which is infinite? I think t hat is self-evident. If that were not the case, God needn’t have troubled Himself to make me. He would have only needed to make you. Yet here I am, and my being here makes what I have said self-evident.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
. . . You can cite sources back 2,000 years that say you are right. I can cite sources back 6,000 years that say I am right. My version allows you the space to be right, and yours is more limited in what it allows. More limited doesn’t mean more right. It means more limited. In this case, the more limited faction is trying to confine God to one reality, because one reality is easier to comprehend or more comfortable. It is not necessarily how things are, and God needn’t be confined to one reality or confined to anything else for that matter. Only your mind is confined to that. In my 6.000 year old religion, God says there are many realities, all of which belong to Him. . . Which is more likely to be a product of a real God in a real universe? That which is limited and tunnelized in scope, or that which is infinite? I think that is self-evident. If that were not the case, God needn’t have troubled Himself to make me. He would have only needed to make you. Yet here I am, and my being here makes what I have said self-evident.

Your friend
Sufjon
I agree with you. It is one of the tenets of my religion that God is too infinite, too unknowable, to be confined by or relegated to one belief system. All belief systems may hold a glimpse of God, but no religion can fully encompass all that is God.
That would include the “New Age” faiths now experiencing a resurgence throughout much of the world.
I would not say these non-Christain, and, indeed, often non-monotheistic religions possess any absolute truth, but no faith does.
But all may contain a portion of it. Perhaps, because the portion of the truth they possess is different from the portion contained by Christianity, they may be more attractive to those who do not find Christianity particularly compelling.

Peace,

Seeker
 
Seeing unholiness in what is held in the hearts of others reveals only what is unholy in one’s own heart. Likewise, seeing God in the hearts of others reveals what is holy in one’s own heart. Mother Teresa did not stop to ask people what religion they belonged to before she revealed the Christ within her by seeing the Christ within them and acting in accordance with what she saw. She knew Him, because when He was hungry, she gave Him to eat. When He was thirsty she gave Him to drink. She saw Him. She did not see Catholics or Hindus or Buddhists. She saw God. Therefore He will know her as well. He will not know the one who sees not the Lord in others, and that includes the hearts of others, because therein He resides. Better to throw out all the other trappings of what one believes than to miss this. It is the only thing you have to achieve, because then you can love the Lord properly and fully and thy neighbor as thyself. They are in fact one in the same, and because this is so important to know, it is in fact the only commandment you were given when your people encountered God in the man Jesus, is it not?

Your friend
Sufjon
Quote:

“…it is in fact the only commandment you were given when your people encountered God in the man Jesus, is it not?”

You are mistaken. Jesus never said that there is only one commandment. You are referring, probably, to when Jesus was asked about which of the commandments are most important - to Love God with all our heart and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. But he kept the other commandments as well. If you accept that he was right about the need to love our neighbors for the sake of God, then you have to accept the other things He said as well. He told the Apostles to go out to all nations and baptize and to teach ALL that He had taught. Everything. And there was more to what he taught than just peace and love. Some of it was unpleasant.

Quote:

“She saw Him. She did not see Catholics or Hindus or Buddhists. She saw God. Therefore He will know her as well. He will not know the one who does not see the Lord in others, because therein He resides. Better to throw out all the other trappings of what one believes than to miss this.”

Mother Theresa never threw out the other “trappings” of the Catholic faith, and we will not do so either. She did her best to see Christ in the poor and suffering of the untouchable class in India - those who were rejected, shunned, and treated as slaves by Hindu society. Mother Theresa, at times, received death threats from those in Hindu Society who felt threatened by her work with the untouchables. But these threats did not stop her.
You see, love of God also entails being willing to suffer and sacrifice for His sake. It entails, too, forgiveness. I don’t know if Mother Theresa forgave those who threatened her, or if she prayed for them, but it would be consistent with the Catholic Faith that she so loved, if she did so.
 
This does not negate the infusion of spirits into objects or the possibility that spirits may attach themselves to objects or symbols, or that people in certain cults can be programed to response a particular way to an object or a symbol.
The point is that it is not the case for every symbol or even for every copy of every symbol. Add in the rarity of such events and you’ve pretty much ruled out a huge probability of anything ‘pagan’ being possessed.

People are more likely to get killed in a car accident than own a cursed statue.
You may never accept anything I have said, unless you get your own glimpse into the spiritual realm. There is a battle going on whether or not one can see it.
Translated: “You are wrong because you don’t have special spirit glasses. If you did, you would agree with me.”

One single supernatural experience isn’t enough to tell me that every single statue of Buddha out there or every kooky voodoo mask on display is a house full of evil spirits.
 
What other religion is so full of conditions and limitations to it’s familial love? God is not subject to limits and conditions, and He doesn’t impose them on you. What is imposed on you is entirely the machinations of the human mind applied to the things that an incarnation of God said and did whilst He was among you in human form. Being among us in human form is nothing new either. New to Christians, but not new to everyone.

As for reality vs subjectivity, what proof do you have that what you have embraced as reality is any more real than what someone else has taken to be reality? I hear the words of Jesus and see one thing. You hear them and hear something else. Listing a succession of people back to Paul or whomever you like doesn’t make you right. It simply makes you able to list the names of people who thought they were right, or wanted you to think so at least. Because they told you they were divinely inspired is not cause to take it that they were or were not. You cannot know their motives, ability to comprehend what they saw or didn’t see, or much else other than what they told you. yet you chose to believe it. You take it to be reality, but I see another reality. You can cite sources back 2,000 years that say you are right. I can cite sources back 6,000 years that say I am right. My version allows you the space to be right, and yours is more limited in what it allows. More limited doesn’t mean more right. It means more limited. In this case, the more limited faction is trying to confine God to one reality, because one reality is easier to comprehend or more comfortable. It is not necessarily how things are, and God needn’t be confined to one reality or confined to anything else for that matter. Only your mind is confined to that. In my 6.000 year old religion, God says there are many realities, all of which belong to Him. In your 2,000 year old religion, there seems to be but one. It does not allow for the existence of what others see as reality, while my religion allows your reality to exist. Which is more likely to be a product of a real God in a real universe? That which is limited and tunnelized in scope, or that which is infinite? I think t hat is self-evident. If that were not the case, God needn’t have troubled Himself to make me. He would have only needed to make you. Yet here I am, and my being here makes what I have said self-evident.

Your friend
Sufjon
Perhaps more limited does not in itself mean more right, but limitation is a criterion of what we know is right. It is no act of love to let one do whatever one wishes. Your belief system, though old, does not make it right either. If age and limitation does not make a system right, then how can we know? We have to go by our faith. Creation itself speaks to the truth of the Christian God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top