A
afthomercy
Guest
I thought it was evident from my post. Please read it again.
Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?
- Status
S
Sufjon
Guest
Ah - you mean the part about us being separate from God and one another? Please if I have that right.
Thanks -
Your friend,
Sufjon
A
afthomercy
Guest
Bingo! You also put it in your signature, although there you restrict it to living beings. Eastern spirituality however extends it to non-living beings (inanimate objects) also.
B
Barbkw
Guest
It’s the attempt to wash away early childhood Catholic conscience and mortality training.
Your sin is O.K., My sin is O.K. Oh wait, even better - there is no sin.
God is universal love and acceptance of all that humanity is.
Blah, blah, blah.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Love understanding, acceptance of all humanity, blah, blah, blah? Do you really feel that way about love, understanding and acceptance of all humanity? Blah, Blah blah?
That is really profound, in that it gives a view deep into the heart of the matter. Could you help me understand why one would prescribe to a religious philosophy that would cause me to feel that way, and write something like that?
Your friend
Sufjon
B
Barbkw
Guest
You misunderstand my sarcasm.
In addition, my post was not to you, I was answering the OP original question, “Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?”
God does not accept or love the sinful actions of humanity.
He forgives the repentant of their sins (committed both against Him and their neighbors) and grants them His grace.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Good. Now I understand what you are saying. Tell me if you would, where that is supported in your scriptures that we are all separate and how you come to those conclusions. Can you tell me what you see that makes you feel separate from God and others? As a follow on question, could I also ask if that separation is a long-term expectation. Specifically, do you believe that God intends for it to be that way and to stay that way? No union with God and others? This is fascinating, and I appreciate your help.
Your friend
Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
I just found it odd that the idea of love, understanding and acceptance of all humanity would touch a sarcastic chord in anyone. As I said before, I am learning a lot more by talking to people on this website than I had imagined. I had the impression that religion in general rouses the higher self in people, but it seems that might be largely dependent on which people and which religions. I am still weighing all that. Thanks for your help.
Your friend,
Sufjon
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Sufjon,
Perception has nothing to do with reality. The person who suffers a serious spinal cord injury loses the perception given by the senses. A quadraplegic put into too hot a bath will not cry out in pain because he feels no pain - his skin however suffers 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns and will require prompt and specialized medical attention if he is to survive.
I have no knowledge of your soul having any torment now. But, the issue is not what happens in this life, but rather what happens in the next. To be honest, I really do not know you believe when it comes to an after life. So, maybe you will be good enough to let us know. Since you are on CAF, which, in addition to Catholics has a goodly number of Christians - I think you will find the vast majority believe in a life after our earthly death. It is in this life that we are ultimately rewarded for our cooperation with the Grace of God or punished for our lack of cooperation. For those in the second category the torment is for all eternity without end. Mark 9:48 provides a graphic description.
As i understand the process, if one - anyone - is cooperating with the Graces God provides them and dies in this state of cooperation - they will not be punished for they have acted in good faith. Failing in this, there will be eternal torment for such a person.
Maybe I misunderstood your expressed view. What you have consistently described is most commonly known as Moral Relativism. My understanding of this philosophy is: We are all the same, there are good choices and better choices and it is hoped that we will all make better choices as we progress through life. While doing good is desirable, failing to do so is not wrong because there are other factors that must be considered. We will all received a reward because we have all tried. With this life - and our enjoyment of it being the greatest good - effectively being an end in itself, to eat, drink and be merry is a desirable end and encouraging others to also engage in this is a worthwhile activity.
As you read, Benedict XVI sees Moral Relativism as a distince evil that is corrupting the world’s populations with the glorification of self-seeking while refusing to take a real stand against Evil.
If you want to start a thread on austerities that would be a good time to ask such a question. Until then, sticking to the established thread is the most appropriate action at this time.
There is no problem with loving God for God’s own sake - actually, this is the highest form of praise I can think of. Loving God for fear of punishment while not as good, is certainly not bad. Claiming to love God while hating our neighbor is a delusional contradiction 1John 4:20 addresses this with direct simplicity.
The thrust of New Age is on the self - it starts with self, it goes to great (ane expensive) lengths to love, enhance and enlighten self and ultimately it ends with self. The problem is we are made for a greater good than self - we are made by God to love Him… so we have a major conflict with the goals of New Agers and Catholics.
God bless
Perception has nothing to do with reality. The person who suffers a serious spinal cord injury loses the perception given by the senses. A quadraplegic put into too hot a bath will not cry out in pain because he feels no pain - his skin however suffers 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns and will require prompt and specialized medical attention if he is to survive.
I have no knowledge of your soul having any torment now. But, the issue is not what happens in this life, but rather what happens in the next. To be honest, I really do not know you believe when it comes to an after life. So, maybe you will be good enough to let us know. Since you are on CAF, which, in addition to Catholics has a goodly number of Christians - I think you will find the vast majority believe in a life after our earthly death. It is in this life that we are ultimately rewarded for our cooperation with the Grace of God or punished for our lack of cooperation. For those in the second category the torment is for all eternity without end. Mark 9:48 provides a graphic description.
As i understand the process, if one - anyone - is cooperating with the Graces God provides them and dies in this state of cooperation - they will not be punished for they have acted in good faith. Failing in this, there will be eternal torment for such a person.
Maybe I misunderstood your expressed view. What you have consistently described is most commonly known as Moral Relativism. My understanding of this philosophy is: We are all the same, there are good choices and better choices and it is hoped that we will all make better choices as we progress through life. While doing good is desirable, failing to do so is not wrong because there are other factors that must be considered. We will all received a reward because we have all tried. With this life - and our enjoyment of it being the greatest good - effectively being an end in itself, to eat, drink and be merry is a desirable end and encouraging others to also engage in this is a worthwhile activity.
As you read, Benedict XVI sees Moral Relativism as a distince evil that is corrupting the world’s populations with the glorification of self-seeking while refusing to take a real stand against Evil.
If you want to start a thread on austerities that would be a good time to ask such a question. Until then, sticking to the established thread is the most appropriate action at this time.
There is no problem with loving God for God’s own sake - actually, this is the highest form of praise I can think of. Loving God for fear of punishment while not as good, is certainly not bad. Claiming to love God while hating our neighbor is a delusional contradiction 1John 4:20 addresses this with direct simplicity.
The thrust of New Age is on the self - it starts with self, it goes to great (ane expensive) lengths to love, enhance and enlighten self and ultimately it ends with self. The problem is we are made for a greater good than self - we are made by God to love Him… so we have a major conflict with the goals of New Agers and Catholics.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Sufjon,
Not to intrude … but I think Barbkw was expressing his idea of how New Age has corrupted these concepts - and this is what Moral Relativiesm is reall all about. You see, not all love is helpful or healthy, people can claim to understand but really miss the entire point, and accepting bad behavior does not help anyone - as we can easily see in our current culture wars.
The battle cry of the New Agers is self -and how to glorify it on this earth. The battle cry of the Catholic Faith is Christ and how He died for the salvation of each and every one of us as He paid the price for our sins. These two groups can not accept the teachings of each other -and those who try to pass off such false acceptance are either playing the fool or are trying to fool others.
To learn more about the Catholic Faith, let me offer you a link: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm . This will take you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The very first raido-button identifies the Table of Contents. Click on this and see what is offered. Pick one item and read what it says about this and then thnk about it. Hopefully, this will give you some insights into our faith.
God bless
Not to intrude … but I think Barbkw was expressing his idea of how New Age has corrupted these concepts - and this is what Moral Relativiesm is reall all about. You see, not all love is helpful or healthy, people can claim to understand but really miss the entire point, and accepting bad behavior does not help anyone - as we can easily see in our current culture wars.
The battle cry of the New Agers is self -and how to glorify it on this earth. The battle cry of the Catholic Faith is Christ and how He died for the salvation of each and every one of us as He paid the price for our sins. These two groups can not accept the teachings of each other -and those who try to pass off such false acceptance are either playing the fool or are trying to fool others.
To learn more about the Catholic Faith, let me offer you a link: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm . This will take you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The very first raido-button identifies the Table of Contents. Click on this and see what is offered. Pick one item and read what it says about this and then thnk about it. Hopefully, this will give you some insights into our faith.
God bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
Our Scriptures proclaim that God existed from the beginning (John 1:1), and that we did not (Genesis 1). Therefore, we are separate from God. He is Creator. We are created. Separate from the transcendent God.
Now as for how we are separate from each other–our Church does not teach that, Sufjon. It teaches that we are indeed, One Body in Christ, by virtue of our Baptism.
When a man professes hatred of his fellow man, he is separated from God. Does your religion proclaim that one can feel hatred and still be in union with God?
I must admit that this is a novel theological concept for me–that hatred and God can be co-existent in a being.
God wills the salvation of all.
God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. source
All that occurs is part of His Will. However, there’s a difference between God’s antecedent will, and God’s consequent will. The antecedent will is, essentially and inevitably, fulfilled. ***The consequent will, however, is that which has its origins in our choices. ***
'Tis curious indeed that someone would accuse Catholics of not having a union with God.
Catholics have the most intimate union known to mankind: that of being One Flesh with God Himself.
A
afthomercy
Guest
BTW, I recognise the picture in your logo, viz. the Lord Krishna, but who is the one in your signature? Just curious. I also listened to the Prabhujee video and found it soothing. Couldn’t catch the entire lyrics, but could understand that it is about the thirst for God. Pandit Ravi Shankar, of course, is as good as they come!
Now, I’ll try to answer your questions as an ordinary Catholic (rather than as a seasoned apologetic). You see, we Catholics have two pillars for our faith, one is sacred scripture and the other is sacred tradition. Then we have a living magesterium that interprets scripture for us and lays down doctrines and dogmas. This magesterium presently consists of the Pope assisted by the synod of Bishops, though the Pope is the final authority. We believe that all teachings of the magesterium are infallible in matters of faith and morals. So I as a layman can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint which part of our Scriptures propulgates separateness, I only know that it is part of the deposit of faith handed on to me, and I’m quite sure that you will find it somewhere in the Catechism, link to which is given in one of the earlier posts on this thread.
Your second question I think I can answer a little better: The Catechism teaches that God created us to know him, to love him and to be united to him, although I don’t think this “union” can be stretched to dissolution of the self. It means an extreme closeness, as a suckling infant to its mother. The infant, of course, experiences that it is one with the mother, though in reality it is not so. God wants us to experience the same closeness with Him. There would be other technical reasons why a total union would not be possible, such as due to like mixing only with like, and God-spirit and human-spirit being unlike.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi tqualey: I think this whole topic of relativism vs absolutism is rather fascinating. Personally, I am a man of the 21st century, where things like relativity are thought to be the nature of the universe. I am looking hard for something absolute in the nature of things. I see people practicing what they think is absolutism, but they look pretty relative to me. It really depends on your vantage point. I think Einstein proved that.Hi, Sufjon,
Perception has nothing to do with reality. The person who suffers a serious spinal cord injury loses the perception given by the senses. A quadraplegic put into too hot a bath will not cry out in pain because he feels no pain - his skin however suffers 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns and will require prompt and specialized medical attention if he is to survive.
I have no knowledge of your soul having any torment now. But, the issue is not what happens in this life, but rather what happens in the next. To be honest, I really do not know you believe when it comes to an after life. So, maybe you will be good enough to let us know. Since you are on CAF, which, in addition to Catholics has a goodly number of Christians - I think you will find the vast majority believe in a life after our earthly death. It is in this life that we are ultimately rewarded for our cooperation with the Grace of God or punished for our lack of cooperation. For those in the second category the torment is for all eternity without end. Mark 9:48 provides a graphic description.
As i understand the process, if one - anyone - is cooperating with the Graces God provides them and dies in this state of cooperation - they will not be punished for they have acted in good faith. Failing in this, there will be eternal torment for such a person.
Maybe I misunderstood your expressed view. What you have consistently described is most commonly known as Moral Relativism. My understanding of this philosophy is: We are all the same, there are good choices and better choices and it is hoped that we will all make better choices as we progress through life. While doing good is desirable, failing to do so is not wrong because there are other factors that must be considered. We will all received a reward because we have all tried. With this life - and our enjoyment of it being the greatest good - effectively being an end in itself, to eat, drink and be merry is a desirable end and encouraging others to also engage in this is a worthwhile activity.
As you read, Benedict XVI sees Moral Relativism as a distince evil that is corrupting the world’s populations with the glorification of self-seeking while refusing to take a real stand against Evil.
If you want to start a thread on austerities that would be a good time to ask such a question. Until then, sticking to the established thread is the most appropriate action at this time.
There is no problem with loving God for God’s own sake - actually, this is the highest form of praise I can think of. Loving God for fear of punishment while not as good, is certainly not bad. Claiming to love God while hating our neighbor is a delusional contradiction 1John 4:20 addresses this with direct simplicity.
The thrust of New Age is on the self - it starts with self, it goes to great (ane expensive) lengths to love, enhance and enlighten self and ultimately it ends with self. The problem is we are made for a greater good than self - we are made by God to love Him… so we have a major conflict with the goals of New Agers and Catholics.
God bless
Case in point:.
There is an epidemic of AIDS on the continent of Africa. There have been churches with missionaries on the ground in Africa teaching abstinence rather than contraceptives. They are telling people that you go to hell for using contraceptives. These same people are also quite aware that these people they are telling this to are going to have sex anyway. It has been a fruitless approach, and people to die in ever increasing numbers. The missionaries have thought perhaps that they were serving God and helping these people. I think they are free to think that if that’s what they truly think, but I think a better argument could be made that they are aiding and abetting the pathogenesis of a collosal human tragedy. It seems that the morality is here relative. The opinion of your Church on this matter is that proper moral teachings were being brought to the people of that continent. The United Nations has publicly disagreed with these church organizations, and issued an unprecedented statement about it (Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 2001 ). Who is right? Who has the absolute truth in this situation?
Is it better for these people to die than to use a condom because of some absolute moral high ground? Why does that moral high ground apply only to people who are at your mercy and need your help? What do I mean? Your scriptures say that it is better to pluck out your eye than to cast a lustful glance, yet I have met few one-eyed Christians. I would like to propose a theoretical world-wide church service, wherein only adults who have never used a condom can attend. How many Christians could attend? How many Hindus, Jews or anyone else? How many of the people who told these Africans that abstinence was they way to fight AIDS could say that they have never used one? I would wager that If there is an absolute answer anywhere, it is here. The answer is that very few could attend.
My sense is that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw absolute truths about.
Your friend,
Sufjon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let me ask you this, Sufjon: if you had AIDS would you continue to have marital relations with your spouse–using a condom, of course–knowing that you had this deadly virus that could infect her? Knowing that the condoms are not able to prevent the spread of this deadly virus with 100% accuracy?
P
PRmerger
Guest
“Condoms have not reduced HIV-AIDS anywhere in the world…in fact, to the contrary, higher condoms across Africa have resulted in higher HIV. If we look across Africa, the countries with the highest condoms, they include Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, these are the countries which also have higher HIV. And if we look at countries with less condoms, such as Uganda, Senegal, Kenya, these are the countries also with less HIV.”
source
D
Denise1957
Guest
Who is it that truly speaks for the African people? Is it you? Is it me? Is it the United Nations? Nope.
The Africans are not a stupid people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. In fact, the conversions to the Catholic faith are growing faster in Africa than anywhere else in the world. This is probably alarming to some people, which is understandable.
I can’t recall his name at the moment, but a Catholic bishop in Africa stated not long ago that AIDS had diminished in the area where Catholic Africans had practiced abstinence. Which makes sense, of course. Isn’t it a good thing that African lives are saved? I’ll try to find the article about what this particular bishop stated.
S
Sufjon
Guest
PRMerger:
Most people on this planet are not able to refrain from sexual relations. For these people, the use of the condom is much more effective in fighting the spread of AIDS. You know that PRMerger. Most medical professionals would agree that it is a good precaution, as does the World Heath Organization. It is in fact, the most recommended way to avoid the disease for sexually active people.
Your friend
Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
Please PRMerger. I won’t even entertain such a Glenn Beck style argument. You are talking about people’s lives.
Your friend
Sufjon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, that is not true, Sufjon. (BTW, I’m refraining right now.
Presumably, every single lurker and poster here is refraining as they type/read. At least, I hope so! 
)And since you didn’t answer the question, I’m going to assume that you would NOT risk your beloved’s life for your pleasure and engage in marital relations if you had AIDS.
Yet, somehow, you’re proposing this would be ok–perhaps because it’s just poor people in Africa that you’re ok subjecting* them* to a virulent disease for the sake of another’s sexual pleasure?
- Status