B
benhur
Guest
True but thankfully a society/nation only needs about 10 % of it population to be brilliant to survIve. They are they innovators, the bill gates’s .
- Status
H
Hans_W
Guest
I wouldn’t use Bill Gates as example
S
Sochi
Guest
Thanks for sharing your beautiful story! You are blessed. Of course we still have our mind even after it gives up and you have the experience that it doesn’t have the answer.
For my part, it has become obvious that despite seeing what your mind prevents you from experiencing, we really don’t have many of the mental patterns that allow a full integration of such an extraordinary experience. We really con’t have a choice but to use the terms and some of the structures that constitute the mind. That is not a bad thing. But it is something to be aware of. And you are under no obligation to continue questioning, no one is. Yet I wonder what you might find if you consider the writings of BR and the many others who have had such a transformation.
You have a precious gift! Treasure it and don’t dilute it. Blessings on you! And thank you so very much for sharing your experience!
S
Sochi
Guest
I think it may be less than that. But there is a necessity of others. Have you ever read Saucer by Stephen Coonts? If you do, pay particular attention to the explication of a technological society by the historian character. You might also like this, about what makes a superior man:
"…We define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
"That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with a leetle more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president–and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evolution never stops.
Here and there among ordinary men is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in a single field–he’s often as stupid as the rest outside his study or his laboratory–but he can think, if he is not disturbed, sick, or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man dislikes and distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the results occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own maunderings. He may still plant his corn by the dark of the moon, but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.
"Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masks himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; a pink monkey among the brown monkeys–a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can dye himself brown before he gets caught.
"The brown monkey’s instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.
"Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption and non-fact. Such men exist, They are “New Man”–human in all respects, indistinguishable in all appearances or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlike a single candle.
~RA Heinlein, Gulf, a short novel in Assignment in Eternity c 1949, '53, '81 RAH
P
Protestor
Guest
I found it
You can’t refute that I am a christian. This is exciting for me, if PJM can’t refute it then no one can.
Or did I miss where you answered me
You can’t refute that I am a christian. This is exciting for me, if PJM can’t refute it then no one can.
Or did I miss where you answered me
M
MacQ
Guest
No “offense” was taken sochi.
And no, I wasn’t suggesting you cut and paste lines and verses.
:yawn:
Did you know that the US is somewhere between 17th and 47th on various scales of educational accomplishment among developed nations? We are not exactly a Country of smarty pants, yes?
So we really ARE too dumb to understand you.
O
originallyasin
Guest
well i would seem that YOU know more about the CALLING that God Jesus the Holy Spirit on an individual–So in summary you discoverd that YOU knew MORE than God and His Chruch? Or just Better than God and His Church?
God Bless you,
As Saint Paul wrote
New International Version
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people,
it is easy to “quote scripture” and be righteous like the Pharisees and sadjusties -
but if an individual does not have any o the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit that Saint Paul defines in 1 Cor ch- 12- and in chapter 14–
it’s just an opinion-- or some scripture commentary – that they “memorized”
some "dogma " they were taught – as the truth–
and the Truth of the kingdom is " i you don’t have the Holy Spirit" then you are led by a different spirit
B
benjohnson
Guest
That’s not fair at all.
Sometime PJM and I disagree - but I can’t disagree when he quotes scripture. Because it’s the word of God.
PJM’s debating styles is also not the same as mine, but if he raises a good point, then it’s up to me to counter it - if I can’t then I should investigate further.
Rather than come up with a way of silencing PJM through ad-hominum attacks, in my opinion it would be better for all of us, and better for the debate, for you to being up a salient counter point.
S
Sochi
Guest
Lord! LOL! No, the fact of ignorance is not proof of inability, only of narrowness of experience and consideration. We all suffer from that. I’m just trying to be encouraging. As I said elsewhere, I hold with Einstein and Picasso that all children are geniuses. They just get it taught out of them.So we really ARE too dumb to understand you.
P
PJM
Guest
If indeed you are a baptized Roman catholic, the tenor of your post is puzzeling.
If you’d like to chage the topic. please feel free to begian a new post, let me know if you do, and I will be happy to engage you in friendly dialog.
God Bless you friend,
Patrick
A
almostst
Guest
interesting – doctrune here–Why THANK YOU friend,
God witholds right understanding as a penalty for opposing His singular- truth. AS a Soul is a teribble thing to lose, I was praying you’d get that message.
Because God permits your personal opinion, DOES NOT mean God arrpves ot it, or will tolerate it.
The Catholic Church has Christ REAL Presence; Luthers SADLY do not. So YES friend; that is abandoning God. Amen!
do you have any further evidence of this-- God with holding his holy Spirit and understanding? in the new testement–
according to scripture – the gifts and callings of God are given w/o repentence
i have not seen any one teach – this??
A
almostst
Guest
too bad-- you do not understand “context” Jesus recognized the miss -application and context with the religious leaders–
this is why Saint Paul said in Eph-
Ephesians 4:14 Then we will no longer be … - Bible Hub
biblehub.com/ephesians/4-14.htm
Bible Hub
so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful …
and Saint Paul directed his fellow ship to be baptised in the Holy Spirit (acts 19)
this is why he said there was on faith and one lord and one baptism–
and guess what-- there are spirit manafestations of the holy spirit–
like in 1 sam 10:
The Spirit of the LORD will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person.
plenty of people quote scripture – i listen to many - dead homily’s- and many in non catholic churches sermons
S
Sochi
Guest
Patrick, “friendly” is no cure for avoidance, especially as I have not changed the topic, but as usual, you decline to deal with it by using the strategy of avoiding the admission of any perspective other than the one you learned. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable dialog with someone who won’t even admit consensus agreements on historical data. It’s in your court, Patrick.
J
Jerbear
Guest
This is partly why I left the Catholic Church. As much as I respect the beliefs and traditions I look at how many faiths across the world claim to be the true faith and the correct one who base their faith off God revealing Himself to them,yet their beliefs vary drastically. I figured that while it could be the truth, the chance of it actually being the whole truth with all the answers was pretty low. Just my opinion.If "Truth: exist, it MUST be singular.
So there can be but One True Church
Why is your church the one? Or why is it not the One?
God Bless you,
Patrick
M
MacQ
Guest
Well, that’s one guy’s opinion, or way of putting it.
I don’t like the notion either…and was glad to find that it isn’t church teaching…at least not put in such an arrogant fashion. It’s one thing to say that we think catholicism offers the fullness of faith…quite another to say we’re the ‘one true church’.
In fact, the idea that used to be attributed to catholics that there was ‘no salvation for anyone else’ was what kept me from converting sooner, and would have kept me from converting altogether, had it persisted and been backed by the Church. Glad it got corrected at Vatican II.
S
Sochi
Guest
Well, just “one guy’s opinion?” I hardly think so. I could get a few football squads like him just in a few blocks around here. And whatever the Church teaches, which as far as I can tell is far less adamantine than the insistences of some on here, it is the attitude of many posters, other considerations, however sincere and valid, be damned. And as I have pointed out, many of the arguments presented by some Catholics on here I wouldn’t have dared to use at the height of my fervor for the Church, because they are counterproductive, off-putting, and in a few cases, just not so or definitely faulty. I feel for those people and for the Church they, in my opinion, misrepresent, as if infallibility wasn’t just for the Pope under special circumstances.
M
MacQ
Guest
Well, I guess you’re saying ONE guy’s opinion doesn’t cover it, and there are far too many others with said opinion. I agree with that, and the rest of your post totally.
I should have said “That’s just opinion, not Church teaching”.
Te attitude is absolutely counterproductive, and apt to turn many away from considering catholicism at all. It would have been a barrier for me. Aside from being unteneable for some, it smacks of sickening arrogance. Hardly the humility we strive for.
S
Sochi
Guest
Yes, I agree in part, except about the arrogance. Arrogance means the refusal to ask questions, and therefore make accurate observations, resulting in separation, not harmony, yes? Here’s the thing. It is SO easy to mis-state something, and misrepresent something. Why is that important? To me it is important because I read a lot of posts on her and other places. The most common features of the aggregate, whatever the topic, are bad spelling and poor grammar. That is like sour notes in music and poor math. And even if one claims that those aren’t important, fact is, they bear o the feeling of the presentation. So for me, it makes me wonder about the way many people think, and what tools they are using to do the thinking they think they are thinking.
This is of even greater importance, perhaps paramount importance, when it comes to “thinking” about one’s faith or religion. Regardless of the emotional sincerity of many on here, I wonder at the degree of finesse and discrimination available to some. And of course, there is the monumental bugaboo of being a cradle anything. If you take it away from the kind of reactivity that would say this is about Catholics, and look at is as a social phenomenon about politics, food preference, etc, it is clear that many or most of any religion are in it because they “were born that way.” And then one has to ask if this is about a lottery, or is is something that all the people in the world actually deeply examine and conclude about using adequate tools and all data. In my opinion, no.
In that case, my main investment is in basic self knowledge, of which the average person seems to have little, other than the unfounded belief that their particular perceptions and thoughts equal the totality of useful reality. Do they? Or do they reflect what they necessarily grew up with and had to think in order to get along and be safe? What might happen to the kid who spontaneously starts spouting christianist ideas in thee house of some guy who just killed some Catholics in the next village? As humans, we just don’t up and burst out with some extra-familial ideology.
And ordinarily neither do we, later, conduct any sort of deep search of our own nature and how we know things, and do a really exhaustive inventory and collation of all that is available to us as humans. Indeed, if we do such a search, it is most often within the bounds of the paradigm we grew up with. Even in terms of conversions, we usually stick within a larger and similar group; C1>C5, or some such. It takes a pretty profound need or insight to prompt someone to go outside their faith group. And even then there are pre verbal and pre cognitive factors at play. The human mind is in a kind of hypnotic state until about 7, the alleged “age of reason.”
So, in order to have a really solid foundation, it might be useful to be well versed in self knowledge before considering any religion, perhaps even Catholicism. That way it is more assured that one’s faith is no mere accident one can become fervent about solely (lol) through chance association, and more one of really having a clue as to what is available, including some of the esoteric options even within the more public faces of some faiths or philosophies.
And if someone is utterly convinced that they are already “home,” and not in need of such process, fine, I guess. But then what of all the other faithers and religionists in the world? Would the above process not be recommended to them in order to convert to the “One, True, faith?” If yes, and one hasn’t done such a process themselves, what weight of authority is there other than putting stock in habituated third party references? So, to me, even if one has a nominal faith and is emotionally convinced of it, it may not be enough, even with a line of ascribed evidence.
Do I then think that someone with an unexamined faith is void of “real” experience? No, of course not. But what they are void of to some degree must be the conviction of an actually comprehensive consideration, and more importantly, a language that includes such experience as would facilitate interfaith communication and understanding. How often have I seen people arguing for the same thing but expressed in their particular phraseology as having sole proprietorship of something Universal?
Draw your own conclusions about this. I can’t imagine how hard it has to be for someone totally identified with their faith to see beyond their pedigree of belief even for a moment. But what I do know is that it s enthusiastically rewarding.
P
PJM
Guest
Truth my friend is, as it must be per defined issue, singular.
What I share is God’s singular truth as is my duty.
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Honestly it’s not all that difficult to discern IF and WHEN one seeks the help of the Holy Spirit.
The lays in the #1
Only #! True God [Both in the OT & the NT] Lev. 26:12; 2nd Cor. 6:16
Only #! True sets of Faith beliefs Exo. 15: 16, Eph. 4: 4-7
Only #1 Chosen people in the OT and One Church in the New Testament Duet. 7: 6; Mt. 16:18-19
NOT ONE TIME IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE DOES GOD DEVIATE FROM THIS 1+1+1= Gods singular Truth. NOT even one time!
So friend, PLEASE show me where I am wrong here
God Bless you,
Patrick
- Status