Your thoughts please

[MacQ]

Indeed!

I wonder how many people what have “given up on God” continue to attend church weekly, read the scriptures, attend bible study, partake of the sacraments, have their children baptized etc?

Yes…I find some folks here to be a tad…well zealous or dogmatic.
Takes all kinds I reckon.

 

[MacQ]

Y

As a lifelong Catholic I was always under the impression that the Catholic Church doesn’t have this “we are the only ones saved” attitude, .

Indeed that is not the position of the Church…happily for me, as if it were, I could never have embraced catholicism.
I wish some of the catholics who post here knew it.

 

[MacQ]

I am always vexed by that POV.

Who exits the Catholic Church knowing that it’s the true one? If you knew it was the true one would you not want to stay? Or at least stay and not really be satisfied but stay knowing its true.

I am not sure anyone falls under that heading.

Most people who smoke know it’s not good for them. They do it anyway.

I can imagine that people who had poor catechesis (and some of that indeed has happened) might not have come to believe that catholicism was afullness of faith… or folks who had some other negative encounter that is part of what humanity an human institutions can deliver could easily talk themselves out of staying…
Then there are folks who simply want to do what their own will dictates and not follow the Church (they use lots of excuses to do so).

 

[Sochi]

Most people who smoke know it’s not good for them. They do it anyway.

I can imagine that people who had poor catechesis (and some of that indeed has happened) might not have come to believe that catholicism was afullness of faith… or folks who had some other negative encounter that is part of what humanity an human institutions can deliver could easily talk themselves out of staying…
Then there are folks who simply want to do what their own will dictates and not follow the Church (they use lots of excuses to do so).

For my part, I left because of what was in my instance and perception a functional disorder within the Church. No one of it’s representatives could adequately deal with an experience that befell me, and platitudes about belief and prayer were insufficient answer for my necessary and experientially based questions. After due diligence, I looked elsewhere and found a delineation of understanding that was pretty much 1/1 for clearing things up for me. Over many decades my choice has unfolded as the best thing I ever did in my whole life.

And in my instance it was anything other than poor catechesis. I was at the top of my class all four years of school in religious studies and represented it in competitions. Neither was I willful. I did, as I said, due diligence. I personally interviewed many clergy and knowledgeable lay people about my circumstance. Nothing of any practical use was forthcoming, until I serendipitously found a perfect explanation elsewhere than in or as the Church. So while the Church my serve very well and useful for many, in my instance, that just wasn’t the case. So there may be exceptions.

 

[MacQ]

For my part, I left because of what was in my instance and perception a functional disorder within the Church. No one of it’s representatives could adequately deal with an experience that befell me, and platitudes about belief and prayer were insufficient answer for my necessary and experientially based questions. After due diligence, I looked elsewhere and found a delineation of understanding that was pretty much 1/1 for clearing things up for me. Over many decades my choice has unfolded as the best thing I ever did in my whole life.

And in my instance it was anything other than poor catechesis. I was at the top of my class all four years of school in religious studies and represented it in competitions. Neither was I willful. I did, as I said, due diligence. I personally interviewed many clergy and knowledgeable lay people about my circumstance. Nothing of any practical use was forthcoming, until I serendipitously found a perfect explanation elsewhere than in or as the Church. So while the Church my serve very well and useful for many, in my instance, that just wasn’t the case. So there may be exceptions.

Well, I gave several examples of why someone leaves the Church (in reply to someone who asked why anyone would).
As it turns out, you fit one of those examples… having had a negative experience.
Glad you found answers elsewhere.

 

[Hans_W]

For my part, I left because of what was in my instance and perception a functional disorder within the Church. No one of it’s representatives could adequately deal with an experience that befell me, and platitudes about belief and prayer were insufficient answer for my necessary and experientially based questions. After due diligence, I looked elsewhere and found a delineation of understanding that was pretty much 1/1 for clearing things up for me. Over many decades my choice has unfolded as the best thing I ever did in my whole life.

And in my instance it was anything other than poor catechesis. I was at the top of my class all four years of school in religious studies and represented it in competitions. Neither was I willful. I did, as I said, due diligence. I personally interviewed many clergy and knowledgeable lay people about my circumstance. Nothing of any practical use was forthcoming, until I serendipitously found a perfect explanation elsewhere than in or as the Church. So while the Church my serve very well and useful for many, in my instance, that just wasn’t the case. So there may be exceptions.

Sochi, you really make us curious as to the “functional disorder” you perceived within the church. And what is this other “circumstance” you interviewed clergy and lay people about? I would also love to know more about the perfect explanation you found elsewhere.

Is there anything you can share with us so that we can also learn about?

 

[benhur]

I am always vexed by that POV.

Who exits the Catholic Church knowing that it’s the true one? If you knew it was the true one would you not want to stay? Or at least stay and not really be satisfied but stay knowing its true.

I am not sure anyone falls under that heading.

many Catholics think it too ambiguous also but then why have the dogma, a subtle club held with a benevolent smile ?

 

[benhur]

Yes, we do see you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

As a lifelong Catholic I was always under the impression that the Catholic Church doesn’t have this “we are the only ones saved” attitude, which you sometimes find in other denominations.

We’ll thank you. While some denominations may feel they are the only ones saved( though I do not know of any that I would consider Christian) unfortunately there is only one that says all salvation/grace stem from her.

 

[Sochi]

Sochi, you really make us curious as to the “functional disorder” you perceived within the church. And what is this other “circumstance” you interviewed clergy and lay people about? I would also love to know more about the perfect explanation you found elsewhere.

Is there anything you can share with us so that we can also learn about?

Us? who have you been talking with?

For me, I’ve discussed this to nauseam with religious people or otherwise to no useful end. Either you get ti or you don’t, it seems, with little ground in between. But with the encouragement to look for yourself, here it is once again:

There is little doubt in my mind that there was a Jesus. I am sure he taught. Where my contention stems from is that from what I can now understand, the original Teachings of the Master, over time, and most certainly in the third century, as a written or orally transmitted teaching, lost the actual experiential component that was intended as the basis of understanding. That experience seems to me to be the transforamtive basis, not the the formalized, dogmatized, teneted institution as an intellectual teaching we appear to have today, as wonderful and as useful to so many as it might be. I am certainly very grateful for having gone through the Catholic school system, as it gave me so many tools for critical thought and expression.

My reason for saying what I do about a perceived dysfunction from my particular standpoint, is that when I was attending the Catholic school at the time, I had, what in some literature, is mistakenly called an enlightenment experience. I won’t go in to the technicalities of that. But what I will say is that as far as I diligently pursued an understanding of that experience, the literature and the representatives of the Church were in effect far less than helpful. Even today, when I read the analysis and teaching on what is thought to be that experience, it is off base. Nothing I have found as teaching within the Church is adequate to the explication of that event and its consequences. I have found out since that there are many in a similar situation who agree.

What does work, and is completely congruent with my experience, is the explanation derived from the experience of exponents of non dualism. That fits. And in fact, in my reading, as I have hinted, the Bible and the writings of many of the Churches mystics are very different and very clear. That comes with the caveat that it appears to me that some in the Church could not say straight on what they meant, only go up to it, for fear of sanctions from the Church which now reveres them. To me it is a matter of communing with someone who had been to a foreign land, (those mystics) as have I, and someone who wrote a travel guide based on hearsay. No offense intended as I have no doubt of the sincerity and faith of such writers.

So in the same way as an ordinary person might mistake their thought process to be the same as an Einstein in kind and degree save for lack of application, it seems to me that the witnesses and commentators of the life of the Master weren’t quite there and so the following accounts were, shall we say, lacking in some respects. Even Mark 4:33,34 hints at this. All that is happening is that there are modes of awareness which are not common, several of them, actually, which the ordinary teaching and competence of the Church is not, either for perceptive or habituated dogmatic reasons, equipped to deal with.

And that of view, course, for the regular faithful of the Church is likely to be blasphemous or riddled with error. on the surface it may seem so, but on examination of the experiences and explications of such as Bernadette Roberts, who remains expressly Catholic as far as I know, show a direction of increasing understanding and accommodation for something which, though not a usual experience, is far from uncommon. It is just not popular to talk about, as women’s right to vote, freedom from segregation, and other topics were not in favor even recently, or still!

Nevertheless, what she points to, and authors from the beginning of writing have pointed to, is the one, single, consistent description a kind of experience and its necessary conclusions that can be had spontaneously or through effort, by many. And interestingly, whoever has had this, speaks with great consistency and congruence, even identity, whatever the writer’s culture, race, location, learning, religion or lack of it, status, timeline, anything, including lack of contact with literature or people of like experience.

So there’s my rant, take it or leave it. Thanks for asking. That’s about all I will say about it.

 

[Hans_W]

Us? who have you been talking with?

For me, I’ve discussed this to nauseam with religious people or otherwise to no useful end. Either you get ti or you don’t, it seems, with little ground in between. But with the encouragement to look for yourself, here it is once again:

There is little doubt in my mind that there was a Jesus. I am sure he taught. Where my contention stems from is that from what I can now understand, the original Teachings of the Master, over time, and most certainly in the third century, as a written or orally transmitted teaching, lost the actual experiential component that was intended as the basis of understanding. That experience seems to me to be the transforamtive basis, not the the formalized, dogmatized, teneted institution as an intellectual teaching we appear to have today, as wonderful and as useful to so many as it might be. I am certainly very grateful for having gone through the Catholic school system, as it gave me so many tools for critical thought and expression.

My reason for saying what I do about a perceived dysfunction from my particular standpoint, is that when I was attending the Catholic school at the time, I had, what in some literature, is mistakenly called an enlightenment experience. I won’t go in to the technicalities of that. But what I will say is that as far as I diligently pursued an understanding of that experience, the literature and the representatives of the Church were in effect far less than helpful. Even today, when I read the analysis and teaching on what is thought to be that experience, it is off base. Nothing I have found as teaching within the Church is adequate to the explication of that event and its consequences. I have found out since that there are many in a similar situation who agree.

What does work, and is completely congruent with my experience, is the explanation derived from the experience of exponents of non dualism. That fits. And in fact, in my reading, as I have hinted, the Bible and the writings of many of the Churches mystics are very different and very clear. That comes with the caveat that it appears to me that some in the Church could not say straight on what they meant, only go up to it, for fear of sanctions from the Church which now reveres them. To me it is a matter of communing with someone who had been to a foreign land, (those mystics) as have I, and someone who wrote a travel guide based on hearsay. No offense intended as I have no doubt of the sincerity and faith of such writers.

So in the same way as an ordinary person might mistake their thought process to be the same as an Einstein in kind and degree save for lack of application, it seems to me that the witnesses and commentators of the life of the Master weren’t quite there and so the following accounts were, shall we say, lacking in some respects. Even Mark 4:33,34 hints at this. All that is happening is that there are modes of awareness which are not common, several of them, actually, which the ordinary teaching and competence of the Church is not, either for perceptive or habituated dogmatic reasons, equipped to deal with.

And that of view, course, for the regular faithful of the Church is likely to be blasphemous or riddled with error. on the surface it may seem so, but on examination of the experiences and explications of such as Bernadette Roberts, who remains expressly Catholic as far as I know, show a direction of increasing understanding and accommodation for something which, though not a usual experience, is far from uncommon. It is just not popular to talk about, as women’s right to vote, freedom from segregation, and other topics were not in favor even recently, or still!

Nevertheless, what she points to, and authors from the beginning of writing have pointed to, is the one, single, consistent description a kind of experience and its necessary conclusions that can be had spontaneously or through effort, by many. And interestingly, whoever has had this, speaks with great consistency and congruence, even identity, whatever the writer’s culture, race, location, learning, religion or lack of it, status, timeline, anything, including lack of contact with literature or people of like experience.

So there’s my rant, take it or leave it. Thanks for asking. That’s about all I will say about it.

Thank you for your “rant”. My reaction to it is that you are thinking too much.
I am a scientist and studied philosophy as wee. You might call me a skeptic, but in a positive sense - I just want to get to the bottom of a problem (that’s what we scientists do).
However, when it comes to religion, belief in God, miracles and so on, I just switch my skepticism off and simply believe. Jesus was fond of children: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” That’s how I want to believe, like a little child.

I am glad that I was born into a Catholic family. If I had grown up in a fundamentalist home (the universe is 6000 years old, only our Church is saved), I would possibly have abandoned my belief in God.

 

[Sochi]

Thank you for your “rant”. My reaction to it is that you are thinking too much.
I am a scientist and studied philosophy as wee. You might call me a skeptic, but in a positive sense - I just want to get to the bottom of a problem (that’s what we scientists do).
However, when it comes to religion, belief in God, miracles and so on, I just switch my skepticism off and simply believe. Jesus was fond of children: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” That’s how I want to believe, like a little child.

I am glad that I was born into a Catholic family. If I had grown up in a fundamentalist home (the universe is 6000 years old, only our Church is saved), I would possibly have abandoned my belief in God.

Thanks for your comment, HW. I can get where you are coming from. From here what is interesting to me is that because I appear not to agree with the face of belief, and question belief itself as a viable means in this question of deity, that I am therefore an atheist. In one sense, that of accepting and anthropomorphised god, yes I am.

But, as a scientist, you might appreciate that many questions go beyond a two valued logic. Such is my case. I neither consider myself an atheist or agnostic in the usual sense. As Richard Feynman pointed out, our questions about systems perceived to be increasingly complex, out overarching answers point to and utilize a greater simplicity. That is where childlike innocence comes in for me. The machinations and contortions necessary for Abrahamic beliefs are just too much for me. Some of the Catholic mystics go towards that simplicity, others certainly do. That is my playground.

 

[PJM]

=JRKH;12004131]Given this definition I would disagree with your opening post.
As a Catholic, I believe our building(s) are dedicated to the worship of the one truth. But there are many such buildings within the Catholic Church - hence - by your definition of “church” there are many churches so dedicated.

As a Caveat to the above definition - a building has no beliefs…only the people within it would.

So it appears that you are really not talking about the building, but about the community within.
You might also be talking about the structure used by a given community or set of communities and this is where the definition of “Church” (or Ekklesia) becomes sticky.

Peace
James

CCC 688" The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit:

• in the Scriptures he inspired;
• in the Tradition, to which the Church Fathers are always timely witnesses;
• in the Church’s Magisterium, which he assists;
• in the sacramental liturgy, through its words and symbols, in which the Holy Spirit puts us into communion with Christ;
• in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us;
• in the charisms and ministries by which the Church is built up;
• in the signs of apostolic and missionary life;
• in the witness of saints through whom he manifests his holiness and continues the work of salvation"

CCC 775 “The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men.” The Church’s first purpose is to be the sacrament of the inner union of men with God. Because men’s communion with one another is rooted in that union with God, the Church is also the sacrament of the unity of the human race. In her, this unity is already begun, since she gathers men “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues”; at the same time, the Church is the “sign and instrument” of the full realization of the unity yet to come"

CCC 751 "The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people. By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

1181 “A church, “a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful - this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial.” In this “house of God” the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place”

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

=Sochi;12007349]For my part, I left because of what was in my instance and perception a functional disorder within the Church. No one of it’s representatives could adequately deal with an experience that befell me, and platitudes about belief and prayer were insufficient answer for my necessary and experientially based questions. After due diligence, I looked elsewhere and found a delineation of understanding that was pretty much 1/1 for clearing things up for me. Over many decades my choice has unfolded as the best thing I ever did in my whole life.

And in my instance it was anything other than poor catechesis. I was at the top of my class all four years of school in religious studies and represented it in competitions. Neither was I willful. I did, as I said, due diligence. I personally interviewed many clergy and knowledgeable lay people about my circumstance. Nothing of any practical use was forthcoming, until I serendipitously found a perfect explanation elsewhere than in or as the Church. So while the Church my serve very well and useful for many, in my instance, that just wasn’t the case. So there may be exceptions.

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,

 

[Sochi]

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,

No, I discovered that the context you insist on limiting the question to is irrelevant, or incidentally/accidentally relevant at best, to Good as such. Where was your argument before the third century? Or earlier? Way earlier? Or where will it be centuries hence? It is a temporary convenience for you and others at the monent, because it creates a framework of explanation for your experience, even a purpose for it. That is fine until you discover more. Not a problem. Mostly.

 

[MacQ]

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,

That ‘specialness’ is pretty much how I interpreted it as well.
But I must admit I quit reading the explanations, as they are wrapped in so much overblown faux erudition they seem designed to convey some kind of overpowering intellect that mere others can’t possibly get. Otherwise known as BS.
If ya can’t say it in simple terms, sochi, you’re fooling yourself.
Just say “I think I’m too smart and too special to join you plebs in a church”.

 

[marywarfield]

That ‘specialness’ is pretty much how I interpreted it as well.
But I must admit I quit reading the explanations, as they are wrapped in so much overblown faux erudition they seem designed to convey some kind of overpowering intellect that mere others can’t possibly get. Otherwise known as BS.
If ya can’t say it in simple terms, sochi, you’re fooling yourself.
Just say “I think I’m too smart and too special to join you plebs in a church”.

 

[Sochi]

That ‘specialness’ is pretty much how I interpreted it as well.
But I must admit I quit reading the explanations, as they are wrapped in so much overblown faux erudition they seem designed to convey some kind of overpowering intellect that mere others can’t possibly get. Otherwise known as BS.
If ya can’t say it in simple terms, sochi, you’re fooling yourself.
Just say “I think I’m too smart and too special to join you plebs in a church”.

That is nonsense. I often go to church with friends. As for how I express myself I learned that in a Catholic school. Critical thinking was appreciated there. And sorry to offend, MacQ, but English is my second language, if not third. Also, I know that my intellect is far less than overpowering. That is why I continue to ask questions. But it seems that the ability to quote lines and verses is more valued here by many than other abilities.

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?

 

[marywarfield]

That is nonsense. I often go to church with friends. As for how I express myself I learned that in a Catholic school. Critical thinking was appreciated there. And sorry to offend, MacQ, but English is my second language, if not third. Also, I know that my intellect is far less than overpowering. That is why I continue to ask questions. But it seems that the ability to quote lines and verses is more valued here by many than other abilities.

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?

Well I don’t know about this. My kids both attended
Catholic schools all the way through and seemed to
have developed the knack to consider their audience
when writing. Now yes those Catholic schools were
in the United states so maybe they just naturally
learned to dumb it down for the rest of us…

 

[brainimplants]

REALLY, and you found that in the bible somwhere? The Catholic church existed for 1,500 YEARS before Luther choose like you to leave the CC. And where in the bible does God even one time approve of COMPETING religions

Heb 6: 4-7
May I suggest you read Heb 6: 4-7 It weas written about 1,400 years before Luther and aimed at those who choose for whatever reason to leavve the ONLY Church; God and Faith that is God approved. This friend is not MY opinion, its what the Bible teaches. Amen:shrug:.

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, Christ Himself in Catholic Holy Communion] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, [Have chosen to be Confirmed into the Catholic Faith] Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,*** [Have BEEN Rightly instructed in the Faith] ***** And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.**

“IMPOSSIBLE” here means UNLESS one repents and converts. Friend you not only gave up Catholicism; you actually gave UP GOD!

May He have mercy and guide to back to His singular truth.

Patrick

it would seem that Jesus would have told – Jesse Duplantis’ (Testimony)

youtu.be/EID6AQeDjsY

Born again-- at 24 - raised a catholic

Rev. Jesse Duplantis shares how Jesus Christ transformed him from a cold-hearted 1970s rock musician into the passionate evangelist some have dubbed “The Apostle of Joy”.

as he got saved – and then entered ministry-- at Jesus instruction–

he seems to have a different understanding of scripture than PJM-- makes people excited to be a christian

 

[benhur]

Us? who have you been talking with?

For me, I’ve discussed this to nauseam with religious people or otherwise to no useful end. Either you get ti or you don’t, it seems, with little ground in between. But with the encouragement to look for yourself, here it is once again:

There is little doubt in my mind that there was a Jesus. I am sure he taught. Where my contention stems from is that from what I can now understand, the original Teachings of the Master, over time, and most certainly in the third century, as a written or orally transmitted teaching, lost the actual experiential component that was intended as the basis of understanding. That experience seems to me to be the transforamtive basis, not the the formalized, dogmatized, teneted institution as an intellectual teaching we appear to have today, as wonderful and as useful to so many as it might be. I am certainly very grateful for having gone through the Catholic school system, as it gave me so many tools for critical thought and expression.

My reason for saying what I do about a perceived dysfunction from my particular standpoint, is that when I was attending the Catholic school at the time, I had, what in some literature, is mistakenly called an enlightenment experience. I won’t go in to the technicalities of that. But what I will say is that as far as I diligently pursued an understanding of that experience, the literature and the representatives of the Church were in effect far less than helpful. Even today, when I read the analysis and teaching on what is thought to be that experience, it is off base. Nothing I have found as teaching within the Church is adequate to the explication of that event and its consequences. I have found out since that there are many in a similar situation who agree.

What does work, and is completely congruent with my experience, is the explanation derived from the experience of exponents of non dualism. That fits. And in fact, in my reading, as I have hinted, the Bible and the writings of many of the Churches mystics are very different and very clear. That comes with the caveat that it appears to me that some in the Church could not say straight on what they meant, only go up to it, for fear of sanctions from the Church which now reveres them. To me it is a matter of communing with someone who had been to a foreign land, (those mystics) as have I, and someone who wrote a travel guide based on hearsay. No offense intended as I have no doubt of the sincerity and faith of such writers…
Nevertheless, what she points to, and authors from the beginning of writing have pointed to, is the one, single, consistent description a kind of experience and its necessary conclusions that can be had spontaneously or through effort, by many. And interestingly, whoever has had this, speaks with great consistency and congruence, even identity, whatever the writer’s culture, race, location, learning, religion or lack of it, status, timeline, anything, including lack of contact with literature or people of like experience.
So there’s my rant, take it or leave it. Thanks for asking. That’s about all I will say about it.

Thanks for sharing. I am so used to conversing with Catholics that I am stumped partly at "answering’’ you. Yes, statements do pose a question, and everybody is selling something…had to read a bit on B. Roberts, fascinating and i am quite ignorant on the "mystics’’. Having said that a teacher once asked if any of us ever had a mystical experience I raised my hand and said , " Yes, I have been born again and had a personal encounter with Christ ". I do know what you mean by being raised in a religious environment that presupposes one has a spiritual life. I also know what it is to exist with no spiritual inclination in fact having a repulsion to it. I remember telling the Jesus freaks at the beach that they were narrow minded and closed the doors to endless possibilities…Then I had what I call an enlightenment, an encounter with the living Christ unattached to any religious rite or formula. All things were new to me, as Paul states. I received faith in the things of God where I once had none or only in my head…The mind is a beautiful thing but it had to tell me, " this is as far as I can take you and you must acknowledge my deficiency and plead your case for enlightenment to the Almighty. In fact this may be my greatest gift to you, to tell you I don’t have “it’.” As Peter was told, "flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but the Father in heaven has’’. “and no man goes to the father except thru the Son , and, " no one goes to the Son unless drawn by the Father” and ,“for no man seeks after God , yet seek and ye shall find”. Reminds me of a young man who sought wisdom from the old sage. So the sage took him to a nearby by river where they both waded in. The sage then took the young man and held him under water and continued to do so for quite awhile. The young man at first allowed it wondering what the sage was up to but finally, almost out of breath, began thrashing violently till the old man finally let him up. "What was that all about ? ", asked the young man . “Tell me ,what was you were thinking about those last moments I held you under?”, asked the sage. “One thing and one thing only, AIR !”, said the young man. “Good”, said the sage, “when you want wisdom the same way you shall find it”…Anyways, that is as far as I go . Jesus is real . Jesus is alive, and behold he stands at the door and knocks, and whoever opens up, he will come in and sup with him.