Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
My point was, prior to the Enlightenment, there was little freedom, democracy or liberty in any country, Catholic OR Protestant. These were products of the "good" Enlightenment, not any particular Christian denomination.
Look, this is the first time you have posted on these threads, and you are a new freeper, so I'll go easy on you.
KNOCK IT OFF!
This thread is meant to be for civil and respectful discussion of religion. If you wish to participate, fine. If you are here to disrupt, your abuses will be reported. Understood?
Which process of the universe are you not part of?
I don't deny our interdependence, D, but if you think you are one with your toaster oven, you've got real problems. ;o) I'm in relationship with things outside myself, but there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
(Though it's a rich vein, I'll skip over the distinction between your "autonomous" before and "interdependent" above)
I share mass with the toaster, I share a limbric system with my cat and can experience an emotion with her, in that experience subject/object are dual only if perceived such. If you wish to debate for the point of duality of experience, you can try your wits against thinkers even in the west such as William James or Bertrand Russell.
"Consider the case of the alzheimer's patient who has progressed to the point of catatonia. "
A functioning mind is necessary for consciousness, but is not consciousness. A functioning mind can be conscious of itself as a horny dog, or it can be conscious of itself as a spiritual being. A functioning mouse brain is only aware of… We agree that a body/mind is a requirement for "self" but the two do not comprise an identity relationship - unless you have become positivist or joined The Church of Scientism on me. The usual framework is nested hierarchies of existence: (matter(body(mind(consciousness(soul(spirit)soul)consciousness)mind)body)matter). Or some variation (remarkably consistent across religions. Healthy humans are comprised all levels in constant development (though conscious awareness may reside in different parts - at different times. When absorbed in playing tennis, "Angelo" IS (his consciousness of himself) is his body. I would say you are identifying (in this discussion) as who you are as "body/mind/consciousness." To you, that is you, that is where your conscious awareness of who Angelo is. So this is the Angelo you expect will be the Angelo that continues (sorta) after-death.
there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
Yes, your skin and physical body have simple location; in one location there is your skin in another there it is not. That is the way with material objects. If you are saying you have a body that consists of matter that is not your toaster, we agree. But we're not discussing your body, but your self.
Yes, you have skin, is that where your self resides? No skin, no self? I'm explaining by absurdity here, not attempting to redicule you. Skin, bones, nerves, brain cells, endocrine system… which is you? Which part of your self resides where; which is lost if your arm is cut off? If you go anywhere near here, you enter the long-debunked fallacy of reductionism and materialism. Move up just a level to mind, then another to that transcending mind and then to the "process" or force that governs what "exists". You are a part of that as much as a wave is part of the ocean; you are claiming your drop is distinct, autonomous (though interdependent) and naming that "Angelo's Self". And further saying that that drop will re-appear, reform in an existence without time or space. What wave in what ocean will this drop of Angelo's self being bobbing at what frequency in what direction?
Let's imagine, look, for a moment beyond the sea - part of the planet - past the solar system and stars and universe, to the unseen into which all of this came into existence. Are you not part of all that, that (call it process for a start) that one thing going on? Is your self, yes, distinct from this (not the same as its entirety), but not separate from it? Is this where we derail? The difference between distinct from and separate from? Who are you? A leaf or a part of a tree? I maintain that as your understanding, spiritually, grows, you can experience yourself, directly experience, as part of the tree and more and more, without boundaries, (the boundary of skin for the most tiny example.) You are the part of all this. You are the part that knows it exists. The part that can say "How awesome thou art!"
Who is it that is aware of your "self"?Anyway, back to the subject: I do not deny the existence of "self" but what most think their true self is. For example, it is not their thoughts, these can be observed objectively, therefore they are not all of the self. The self is not located in a specific part of the body. Another common misconception is that self has simple location: it is "there.""I" am self-aware. If you deny the existence of a "self", who is doing the denying?
I asked first. :). But of course the follow up is if there is something that is aware of something else (self), then there is another awareness other than "self." Here we can go off further…
I will answer this far for now: The self that can observe your thoughts, without being them, the self that is observing your thoughts is closer to your true self and it exists in a glimpse of eternal time.
Eternal because it observes without concepts and without judging, controlling or discoursing on the thoughts it observers. To do so, it must be contantly in the present moment: now, now, now, now, continually. No: "I just thought," no "That thought reminds me… tommorrow I hope…"
Bare awareness of the present moment. The only time that truly exists. Past is memory and regrets; future is hopes and fears. No one has ever lived a moment in the past or a moment in the future, past and future are mental experiences, experiences occuring now, not existing in a real time=future/past. You can only exist in the only time that exists in reality: the ever-present now. Past and future are concept useful for many things, but they do not really exist as "time" only as concepts and thoughts.
[Imagine for a moment what this after-death self in eternity- outside time - will do with memory and past and future.]
Exist in bare awareness in the present moment, observe reality without pre-condition or judgement; notice "who" this "self" is and where, or if, it ends and "not-self" begins. Your "self" is there without need of past or future, they are not real as we think of our time (remember that neither time nor space are absolute qualities; what is the relative time in eternal and absolute beingness?
I have a thought experiment that may spark a better understanding of what I am trying to communicate. Perhaps it won't, perhaps another time.
thank you for your reply, very much.
I'll reply more later when I have had a chance to read through your reply in greater depth.
Seems you missed the point too. It wasn't a comparison to terrorists. It involved terrorists; but, it wasn't a comparison to terrorists. The point was blind faith. And the point was the terrorists had it, the people who let them in had it, the people who rode the plane had it, the pilots had it..... Everyone involved in the situation was a victim of blind faith on some level - everyone. That, to me, is what makes it exempliary of what not to do.
There are other points I could make about it, not the least of which is that the haulocost should be as personal as 9/11. The witch trials should be as personal. The inquisitions and Crusades should be as personal. To me they are all personal examples - very personal. And they are so personal because every one of them is an example of men interposing themselves in the place of God and making judgements of life or death over others because of what they believe. It's not a matter of x-number of lives lost - its a matter of x-number of souls condemned to hell in the midst of any of the situations. If an action or inaction sends someone to hell, then the person or persons responsible have stolen from everyone of us and from God. To me, there is nothing more personal than that.
You haven't a clue on God's green earth what prejudice means. And that you could apply that term to anyone in here regularly shows you are ignorant of it's meaning. Go back to lurking. What is sad is the level of intolerance for other views expressed by you. Why is it that everyone has to be a bigot, a hater, basher or prejudice that disagrees with Catholicism? Hmm? Why is it that you aren't a bigot, hater, basher and prejudice against anything not Catholic. Let's look at it - you rarely take on a point, seemingly always make broad based accusatory attacks, don't clarify or justify them, and it's always done with hateful speach. Sounds textbook to me... And you repeat it here.
On the other hand, the rest of us here try to know our subject (prejudice is judgement without foreknowledge), speak to specifics, and try to be civil even when passionate about a subject. It may not always work; but, so far the majority of us have held it together. Again, if all you can offer is bigoted hateful attacks, Go Back To Lurking - or to Mordor or wherever you've been.
The term you're needing to apply here is 'conviction.' It usually is expressed as a gut feeling.
Well, let's see now, Catholicism had been an oppressor in Europe for a long long time. Catholics coming to this country were not going to be allowed to lord themselves over the people in the new world the way they had in the old. And when it comes to exclusion, the Catholic Church has excluded itself. It was the Catholic Church that couldn't abide core christian teachings in the schools so Catholicism excluded itself from the school system and teaches their own form of history, and its religion. So let's us just get it strait and paint the backdrop that existed.
No religion was going to be given preferrence in this country in the early days no matter what anyone believed in particular because this country was trying to escape authoritarianism under the guise of the combination of Church and state epitomized in England. It had first been the King/Queen and Catholic oppression; but, when the Catholics meddled too far, it became the Monarch plus Church of England. And Church of England was (is) baaaad news too! Were catholics excluded? Yes, by catholics. Were Catholics oppressed? Nope; but, they were kept from pulling the same crap in America they'd done in Europe up to a point. Ya'll just got your nose bent out of shape because on US soil you got the same treatment everyone else got - you're just another religion.
They all bite.
So it is claimed. And likely claimed for the sake of a single word. LOL.
The 10 Commandments. It had the virtue of being incorrect on minor historical points. Ramss (Ramsees) was Shishak. His given name was Shisha. Add the k to the end for Jewish standard approach and it's Shishak. The Jewish standard approach, btw, is generally never to use the proper spelling in addressing an enemy's name in writing. That approach includes changing the name to something bad - I think Shishak means the conquerer or the destroyer if memory serves. Ramsees wasn't the right Pharoah, but the story stands.
Why did he repeat this twice, too make a point.
John 14:6 JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I am THE WAY, ( one way guys), the truth and the life, NO man cometh unto the father but by me.
This is what makes the bible so great. It always speaks in absolutes, so we are not left guessing.
IF a person is truly searching for the truth, and dies before they arrive at it, no one can know if God will accept that. But if a person is a good person, but is following a false religion, accepts that false religion, (works based), as truth, they are not saved. Yes we can make those types of judgements. Jesus told us to teach the gospel. If we refuse to correct people who follow a false teaching for their salvation, becasue it makes us FEEL bad, or because it makes them feel bad, we are not obeying Christ.
The bible is an absolute. You know the old saying "give an inch, they will take a mile," God could not include the "what ifs" in his word. Look how far people have strayed without them, think how it would be if he had.
I'm done preaching now, have a great Sunday:)
Becky
I will say this one more time. No Protestant can trace the beginning of their church before the reformation. You can do like many do on these threads and refuse to admit you’re a Protestant. You can also pretend there was an invisible church for 1500+ years. You can also claim that it doesn't matter what church you belong to or even claim you don't need to belong to any church. However, one thing you cannot do is provide any documentation to back up your claims. It's just wishful thinking on your part which makes it a fantasy.
Unless you are Catholic or Orthodox, you cannot trace your Church or its beliefs to the Church Christ established. That my friend, is a FACT.
So what one "absolute" does the Christian scriptures offer regarding salvation?
But if a person is a good person, but is following a false religion, accepts that false religion, (works based), as truth, they are not saved.
Even if that person is seeking truth, and (mistakenly) thinks he has found it? You have an interesting view of God's mercy.
Well, they didn't just materialize from thin air. Even a bible christian whose only contact with christianity is through the gospels (an impossible example, but to make the point...), the gospels still come from "the formation of the christian church". Despite how they may have branched off since that time, all christians ARE descended from that early church. It is tautological. If they weren't, they wouldn't be christian.
There is absolutely no proof that the Septuagint that Christ read from had the Apocrypha since there are no original manuscripts available.
The oldest Septuagint manuscripts are dated around 2 or 300AD if memory serves me right.
Since Christ, nor the apostles ever quoted from it, you can either take from that, it wasn't in there, or, they ignored it and worked around it.
You are wrong, My Church is recorded in Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The Holy Spirit they had, is the same one I have today.
Unless you are Catholic or Orthodox, you cannot trace your Church or its beliefs to the Church Christ established. That my friend, is a FACT.
Sorry, but your Church has a 300 year gap in it that you cannot account for with out falsified and forged doccuments, and if God had intended for you to make this connection, he would have done so with out the need to lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.