Hard to do when no one is saying anything, and all that's happening is people are second guessing what you are saying without adding anything new to listen to.
They're going to end up following what one of them tells them aren't they. Regardless who tells them it's ok or not ok they're going to be doing it based on what someone else is telling them is acceptable. As in BLINDLY.
You pick and choose little bits of what I post to question while ignoring answering anything I pose to you.
Questions questions questions, all questions. No one has piss all to say other than second guessing my posts since like the second page.
I'm not suggesting you should. I'm saying that if you didn't believe in Jesus you wouldn't be a Catholic even if you believed in everything else. You aren't free to pick and choose which parts you believe.
You follow whoever and whatever your 'leader' (priest or whatever)tells you to. Be it the local priest or the directives passed down from the Vatican.
I'd like to see a Catholic stand up in Chruch and say yeah, this all works for me ... except this whole Jesus bit, I don't buy that part. See how long they're a Catholic.
Free thought doesn't exist. You and the Church ladies can tell me all you wish, and spin it any way you see fit. You believe and follow or you're not a Catholic, or whatever the religion might be.
Show me a Catholic that says Jesus didn't exist. Show me a Catholic that disagrees with anything in the bible.
What's it matter who's changing them? The Vatican does at it sees fit, good Catholics follow. Recovering Catholic, Liberal Catholic, non-practicing Catholic ... bleh bleh bleh. You're Catholic or you aren't. Either you buy into the whole set of guidelines or you're not a Catholic. You can have a majority of Catholic beliefs, but you aren't Catholic if you don't blindly accept it all.
Spin it any way you want, if you are a member of any religion, you buy the whole bit or you aren't a member. They're all just bloody labels. If you believe in God, Christ, Buddha, Mohammed ... whatever, I don't care. Beleieve or disbleieve whatever you want, but if you're a member you buy it all. If you don't and want to think about it, you're lacking in faith and should lose the label. So if someone is a Catholic they have nothing different to say than any other Catholic, as far as I'm concerned.
Now of course that's my slant on it, feel free to tell me yours.
Yea and St Christopher is no longer a saint. Big deal, the Catholic Church changes the rules all the time, and the priests interpret it as they see fit. You're referring to small matters, not issues of faith.
Last I checked some Jesus guy was crucified for our sins. Holy trinity, etc. All the real stuff is laid out loud and clear. When the Church changes a rule or two you follow or are unworthy.
Oh yeah, because Catholicism is so unstructured and lenient. The rules are clearly spelled out, and if you're Catholic you buy into it, or aren't Catholic.
I have no issues with Catholics, or any other religion. But when you start bending something to fit you, drop the label at least. If you're Catholic, it's all spelled out. They even have a little book you might have heard of ... what's it called again ... oh yeah, the Bible.
Yet you refer to an 'older path'. I have to admit I find the wording odd if you claim no ties to any religion. I wilingly concede though that I don't know you well enough to label you anything, I'm rather opposed to labels in any form to be honest. Labels are confining.
The question our century puts before us is: is it possible to regain the lost dimension, the encounter with the HIGHER SELF/INNER SPIRIT ETC, the dimension which cuts through the world of subjectivity and objectivity and goes down to that which is not world but is the Mystery of the Ground of Being.
That's an entirely different question to me.
That suggests alternate 'planes' of existence, varied states of consciousness, awareness, self realization etc. To me this would suggest theories such as reincarnation, spiritual 'energy' and other such beliefs. The ground of being would be the link shared by all the various 'energies/spirits/consiousnesses', hence the mystery seeing as we are unaware while in this form while bound to the 'human' existence. Is it possible to access what our 'spirit' knows while bound to the human form.
I'm no stranger to religions, be it the major 5 or many of the others such as Neo-Paganism, Confusionism, Druidism, Zen etc but Tillich said holy.
I'm anything but bitter. We're communicating via words. If the words are anything we choose them to mean there's no point in communicating.
It's just a tad frustrating when everything gets twisted to mean what anyone wants it to.
Paul Tillich had the ability to choose whatever words he wanted to, he chose 'holy'. The last line refers to faith, "ground of being". Our connection to God.
Hmm ... Epicurus? Wrong thread maybe? I think that's your Death thread. Paul Tillich is who you quoted here
If someone means 'higher self' they should say 'higher self'. Words aren't open to any interpretation anyone sees fit to assign them. If I ask someone to pass me the butter it doesn't mean throw a spoon at me, it means please pass me the butter.
At this rate and playing loosey goosey with meaning he could just as well be asking someone to please pass him the butter. He said holy, if he didn't mean holy he shouldn't have used it.
gibsonish Forum Posts (1,404)
"
RE: Losing your religion?
If it's too 'wild' for the forums feel free to mail it to me if it's relevant and you want me to know what you said.