A
Aloysium
Guest
“Huh?!?.” - Aloysium
- Status
O
orang
Guest
C
Counterpoint
Guest
If God has compatibilist free will, then this implies that any act he has chosen to perform could not have been otherwise. So, his choice to create could not have been otherwise.
I do not deny that God discloses himself to human beings. But the point I am making is that God’s disclosure occurs through our spiritual faculty or intuitive mind which works in conjunction with our analytical mind.
In Thomistic metaphysics, “being” and “substance” are interchangeable terms. So, *being *does not have substance. They are one and the same.
Let’s take another example - “consciousness.” How can something be conscious and not conscious at the same time? Sounds condradictory. Right? But if you ever experienced a state of pure consciousness (a mystical state known as “samadhi”), you would realize that it is the same experience as not consciousness or unconsciousness. How so? Because in such a state, there is neither a subject of awareness or an object of awareness…just awareness itself. (You can’t say “I exist” in that state because there is no “I.”) It is the very same thing with “being” and “not being” or “nothingness.”
Three distinct persons are three separate persons.Counterpoint:
Not necessarily. In the Holy Trinity, there is only one God who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is the one God without separation because there is only one God and not three gods.
Merriam-Webster defines “distinct” as “distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete : SEPARATE” (emphasis mine)
The dialectic and the logos are one and the same thing - divine reason. The term derives from philosophy and was co-opted by Christianity and ascribed to Christ.
To beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means. If you deny that, then you render the term meaningless.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Unless its used as an analogy for God who is not you, thus only applies in the opinion the soul is created and is separate from the Divinity of the Lord.
Also dualistic theology appears underlying in the proposal of non dualism , this seems to be at conflict.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
He eventually came to understand the book as the product of “an intellectual experience called ‘sequential words,’” Groeschel said. “It’s actually very common and probably the least impressive of all these things. St. John of the Cross nailed it. He said, ‘They’re calling the words of God the thoughts that they address to themselves.’ Now, there’s an ice-cold glass of hot water.”
What Groeschel found to be at once most thrilling and confusing about Helen Schucman’s process was that, during the time she wrote A Course in Miracles (a book that any number of fundamentalist Christian ministers have called the most dangerous ever published), she became intensely attracted to the Catholic Church, attended Mass regularly, and was devoted to the Virgin Mary. Only under close questioning did Schucman admit that, many years earlier, she had briefly been a Christian. This had resulted from an “accidental” childhood visit to Lourdes, where she had been so moved that she received baptism upon her return to the U.S. She also had prayed the Rosary for years afterwards, Schucman claimed, until she adopted scientific skepticism as her creed, and lived by it for most of her adult life.
When he suggested she apply for membership in the Catholic Church, Schucman replied that this was unnecessary because, as a Jew, she had been Catholic before “you Gentiles came along and made all these rules.” No less fascinating to the priest was the sharp distinction between Schucman’s own stated convictions and the content of A Course in Miracles. “I hate that damn book,” she often told him, and regularly disavowed its teachings.
Schucman was embarrassed, Groeschel remembered, and confided to the priest her fear that the book would create a cult, which of course it did.
Most troubling to him by far was the “black hole of rage and depression that Schucman fell into during the last two years of her life,” the priest explained. She had become frightening to be with, Groeschel recalled, spewing psychotic hatred not only for A Course in Miracles but “for all things spiritual.” When he sat at Schucman’s bedside as she lay dying, “she cursed, in the coarsest barroom language you could imagine, `that book, that @@@damn book.’ She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her. I mean, she raised the hair on the back of my neck. It was truly terrible to witness.”
And that when you enter the world of the supernatural, the worst mistake you can make is to impose a ultrarealist point of view. You can’t make those kinds of distinctions about experiences that are beyond our comprehension.
beliefnet.com/Faiths/2004/07/The-Making-Of-A-Course-In-Miracles.aspx
In my opinion she was exploited. Can’t see how any conclusion can be reached with an edited work clearly she removed important content from, and never wanted published. Sad really.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles
What Groeschel found to be at once most thrilling and confusing about Helen Schucman’s process was that, during the time she wrote A Course in Miracles (a book that any number of fundamentalist Christian ministers have called the most dangerous ever published), she became intensely attracted to the Catholic Church, attended Mass regularly, and was devoted to the Virgin Mary. Only under close questioning did Schucman admit that, many years earlier, she had briefly been a Christian. This had resulted from an “accidental” childhood visit to Lourdes, where she had been so moved that she received baptism upon her return to the U.S. She also had prayed the Rosary for years afterwards, Schucman claimed, until she adopted scientific skepticism as her creed, and lived by it for most of her adult life.
When he suggested she apply for membership in the Catholic Church, Schucman replied that this was unnecessary because, as a Jew, she had been Catholic before “you Gentiles came along and made all these rules.” No less fascinating to the priest was the sharp distinction between Schucman’s own stated convictions and the content of A Course in Miracles. “I hate that damn book,” she often told him, and regularly disavowed its teachings.
Schucman was embarrassed, Groeschel remembered, and confided to the priest her fear that the book would create a cult, which of course it did.
Most troubling to him by far was the “black hole of rage and depression that Schucman fell into during the last two years of her life,” the priest explained. She had become frightening to be with, Groeschel recalled, spewing psychotic hatred not only for A Course in Miracles but “for all things spiritual.” When he sat at Schucman’s bedside as she lay dying, “she cursed, in the coarsest barroom language you could imagine, `that book, that @@@damn book.’ She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her. I mean, she raised the hair on the back of my neck. It was truly terrible to witness.”
And that when you enter the world of the supernatural, the worst mistake you can make is to impose a ultrarealist point of view. You can’t make those kinds of distinctions about experiences that are beyond our comprehension.
beliefnet.com/Faiths/2004/07/The-Making-Of-A-Course-In-Miracles.aspx
In my opinion she was exploited. Can’t see how any conclusion can be reached with an edited work clearly she removed important content from, and never wanted published. Sad really.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles
O
orang
Guest
yes good point and only begotten Son refers to the only one in its (Divine) class , not The Son was created as some of the cults try to suggest. The other item is the Son and Father in The Trinity, is referring to somewhat of an analogy because it would be God and there needs to be something for man the creature to reflect on, so bringing in more analogies on top of another and all biology would seem to be wandering without recognizing the magnificence of the subject. So wandering is the infraction.
Another problem I noticed with regards to compatible free will, a creature equation is introduced and the God is cornered by the creature with statement, "his choice (God) could not of been otherwise but to create. More wandering and now we have boundaries imposed by the creature. So I guess the infraction for this would be trying to play highway cop with God, get in your lane so to say.
The next thing noticed with the very passionate exploration which is a great thing to be sure, is the introduction of meditation and the I.
Here it is proposed , ( in the paragraph
Right? But if you ever experienced a state of pure consciousness (a mystical state known as “samadhi”), you would realize that it is the same experience as not consciousness or unconsciousness. How so? Because in such a state, there is neither a subject of awareness or an object of awareness…just awareness itself. (You can’t say “I exist” in that state because there is no “I.”) It is the very same thing with “being” and “not being” or “nothingness.”
Important to note the confusion with question,
apparently with above, you can’t say “I exist” in the explained state because there is no “I”.
Question :
If you can’t say I exist in that state , how do you know you are not deliberately interfering with the option to say “I exist” in that state, allowing you to remember the experience itself.
Evidence : If the “I” in fact did not exist then how could the individual remember anything at all in order to communicate what is being communicated in the experience. Therefore it would be a conversation with self and not something which is held to be .
It would be a blank if it were, the restriction on not being able to say I exist. Therefore the experience has more going on then what is being eluded to, intentional manipulation and illusory notions.
I think these things are important because the trend and show style things can try to entice people with fancy talk , this is not heaven on earth and, I’m not evaluating this thing for any individual at all, but simply commenting on what would be a sales pitch, marketing or practice marketing or I don’t know attempting to form up a solid platform either way.
Could be wrong about a few things but am happy to follow the straight and narrow as best possible. Plus all the perspectives would be import and there are some really good thought out ones in this one.
Another problem I noticed with regards to compatible free will, a creature equation is introduced and the God is cornered by the creature with statement, "his choice (God) could not of been otherwise but to create. More wandering and now we have boundaries imposed by the creature. So I guess the infraction for this would be trying to play highway cop with God, get in your lane so to say.
The next thing noticed with the very passionate exploration which is a great thing to be sure, is the introduction of meditation and the I.
Here it is proposed , ( in the paragraph
Right? But if you ever experienced a state of pure consciousness (a mystical state known as “samadhi”), you would realize that it is the same experience as not consciousness or unconsciousness. How so? Because in such a state, there is neither a subject of awareness or an object of awareness…just awareness itself. (You can’t say “I exist” in that state because there is no “I.”) It is the very same thing with “being” and “not being” or “nothingness.”
Important to note the confusion with question,
apparently with above, you can’t say “I exist” in the explained state because there is no “I”.
Question :
If you can’t say I exist in that state , how do you know you are not deliberately interfering with the option to say “I exist” in that state, allowing you to remember the experience itself.
Evidence : If the “I” in fact did not exist then how could the individual remember anything at all in order to communicate what is being communicated in the experience. Therefore it would be a conversation with self and not something which is held to be .
It would be a blank if it were, the restriction on not being able to say I exist. Therefore the experience has more going on then what is being eluded to, intentional manipulation and illusory notions.
I think these things are important because the trend and show style things can try to entice people with fancy talk , this is not heaven on earth and, I’m not evaluating this thing for any individual at all, but simply commenting on what would be a sales pitch, marketing or practice marketing or I don’t know attempting to form up a solid platform either way.
Could be wrong about a few things but am happy to follow the straight and narrow as best possible. Plus all the perspectives would be import and there are some really good thought out ones in this one.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
I never argued that God is nature…
I don’t respond to straw man arguments.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
Catholicism holds that Christ is the eternally begotten. To beget is to procreate. And if you deny that, then you render the term meaningless.
According to Jesus, God is within you.
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21
The “Course” is a book, not a standup lecture course.
I don’t know why you would have an issue with that when it is biblical.
“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” 1 John 4:18.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
I see. You believe that the Apostle John is confused.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
You are the one who is confused. “Begotten” and “generated” are interchangeable terms.
God’s “self-actualization” is a non-temporal dialectical process.
“eternally begotten” = “eternally generated” = “eternally procreated”
And if you disagree, then you render all these terms meaningless. (We can’t verbally communicate with each other unless we agree on the meaning of words.)
The term “pagan” is a pejorative. I will remind you that Thomistic metaphysics is based (almost completely) on the pagan philosophy of Aristotle (and to a lesser extent the pagan philosophy of Plotinus).
I didn’t change anything. I simply pointed out that traditional Christianity actually defines the Trinity in processual terms.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
Jesus himself holds that “we are all gods.”
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” John 10:34-36
The “ego” is the “carnal mind.”
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:” Romans 8:7
C
Counterpoint
Guest
I discuss how I determine if something is inspired in my thread appropriately entitled “Inspiration.”
C
Counterpoint
Guest
You either get an aphorism or you don’t. If you do, then you’ll say: “Aha!” If you don’t, then you’ill say: “Huh?” (That’s the difference between having a spiritual insight or not.)
“Love separates for the sake of union.” - Rumi
“Hello Goodbye”
O
orang
Guest
So where does this go besides all this back and forth over what is disagreed on, all this choppy stuff, what’s the rest of the story in your own words ?
a) what is achieved in this theory exactly ?
b) where is the difference and significance relative to man ?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
We have been over the we are all gods nonsense on numerous thread. Its not what’s being said by the Church, nor is your understanding on procreate, in fact its heresy.
As to ego and the far fetched theory limiting your view to the Saint and everyone else. Only in your mind and “ego” that’s the view only. Obviously the Church and a great deal of psychologists do not hold this view or I wouldn’t have bought it up to begin with.
Yet I see your repetitive refusal to actually “accept” the factual counter argument, leaves you in the awkward state, one your master “Helen” called “denial”. Your having a conversation with yourself as far as I see and straight from the ego!!!
As to ego, I have no issue with Helens understanding, whats not factual is “all” evil is manifested through ego. You refuse not only to accept the counter argument, you insist on imposing your limited understanding on everyone. Who made you the ruler of ego, your ego?
Here’s your par-excellence of psychology and spiritual well being…LISTEN CAREFULLY and lets analysis this for a awhile. …
Good psychologists are active listeners. You missed that class in the course, listen carefully to what Helen is saying “again” Whats your thoughts on Helen? Since we raised her opinion higher than the Word of God.
"Most troubling to him by far was the “black hole of rage and depression that Schucman fell into during the last two years of her life,” the priest explained. She had become frightening to be with, Groeschel recalled, spewing psychotic hatred not only for A Course in Miracles but “for all things spiritual.” When he sat at Schucman’s bedside as she lay dying, “she cursed, in the coarsest barroom language you could imagine, `that book, that @@@damn book.’ She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her. I mean, she raised the hair on the back of my neck. It was truly terrible to witness.”
And that when you enter the world of the supernatural, the worst mistake you can make is to impose a ultrarealist point of view. You can’t make those kinds of distinctions about experiences that are beyond our comprehension."
That’s your “par-excellence” to psychology and spiritual awakening.
You don’t see a problem here? Your argument is based on this above???
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And we are now speaking of the author of THE COURSE.
Helens Course was a crash and burn in application, why in the world would anyone listen to that? You are chanting these strange words as if possessed by them…THE COURSE.
Its rather freaky.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
To convolute the above with Hegel is also a disservice to the author, its obviously not conclusive what she actually thought, and for sure intended, the later being self evident, as I suggest the prior also is.
newadvent.org/cathen/07192a.htm
And why should I accept Hegel?
“It implies that God, being a reality, must be capable of comprehension by the finite mind. It implies, moreover, as Hegel himself admits, that God is only in so far as He is conceived under the category of Becoming; God is a process.”
Thus why Aquinas is quickly relegated to “straw-man”. Its refusal to acknowledge other schools of thought forcing all into hegelism.
newadvent.org/cathen/07192a.htm
And why should I accept Hegel?
“It implies that God, being a reality, must be capable of comprehension by the finite mind. It implies, moreover, as Hegel himself admits, that God is only in so far as He is conceived under the category of Becoming; God is a process.”
Thus why Aquinas is quickly relegated to “straw-man”. Its refusal to acknowledge other schools of thought forcing all into hegelism.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I don’t equate sacred scripture with philosophy which appears to be your take on things here. So I try and refrain from quoting scripture.
True John writes “God is Love”, but scripture also reveals that God is Spirit. According to your comment you make these a contradiction of God’s Word and are confused and cannot find a resolution to what you falsely stated that “John is confused”.
My comment reconciles both God is Love and God is Spirit. Your philosophy does not reconcile these, your opinion makes them contradict one another, and if your philosophy makes God’s Word a contradiction within “Self” Logos, then your god is a false god who contradicts “self”.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I thought I found you to be an intellectual here a free thinker if you will;, I viewed your post, it never defines “divine inspiration”. You correctly defined motivation of the human type not of the divine source.
Humans can inspire another human with human words to motivate the receiver to act on one owns behalf.
Divine Inspiration is revelation. Divine inspiration, is the Third person of the Trinity, Holy Spirit. moving in and through the prophets who write or prophecies what the Spirit reveals to them. The revelation of the divine inspiration is not the prophets own “inspiration.”
What is more unique, that revelation = inspiration is proceeding from the Word who is God (see John1:1-5), Who (Holy Spirit) makes God’s Word known to our humanity.
The inspiration is never the prophets own. The inspiration makes known to the spirit of the prophet the Word of God.,( it is here when Spirit meets spirit, knowledge makes known knowledge that is unseen).
Let me be clear here, the Holy Spirit never proceeds from the prophet who write, the Holy Spirit Inspires or reveals to the spirit of the prophet, and from his spirit =mind, soul, heart which are things of the spirit of man, through these the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets to write. The Holy Spirit proceeds only from what is eternal “Self” God the Father and the Logos.
We are not discussing Angels who are messengers of God, they do not Inspire the prophets to write, these spirits are messengers, when the Message is the Word of God., the Holy Spirit proceeding from that Word inspires the prophets to write.
The LDS theology has Michael an Angel =messenger falsely becoming the Word (message) Jesus.
How does this correlate to your OP? Inspiration = revelation is “why the Trinity.” God in Trinity becomes present to the prophets in space and time to reveal His presence to our humanity.
C
Counterpoint
Guest
The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that each and every attribute of God is ontologically identical with every other attribute.
- Status