Fornication from my past life

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I think you'll find most of us here are intimately familiar with catholic teachings... I got a good chuckle out of this

and in your case that so called familiarity seems to have breed nothing but contempt.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Methinks that whoever wrote that doesn't understand what the term infinite mercy means. Infinite mercy and unforgiveable cannot co-exist as concepts, they are diametrically opposed to each other.

Just how familiar are you with Catholic teaching? :rolleyes:

Or perhaps you are just so familiar with the term irrevocable... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As I've explained before in other threads, that I highly suspect you've read, extremely familiar. Yes, I was caught out once with me not knowing about the symbolism of the fig tree, but does lack of knowledge of one thing suddenly mean I know nothing? I'm a lay person with well over a decade in serious research into this subject.

we have heard you ad nauseam on your self professed theological knowledge but your demonstrations present no supporting evidence for this so I must state that I lack the evidence for any belief that you are as knowledgeable as you say you are.
That said your faith in yourself is admirable.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And maybe you just glossed over the contradiction I pointed out. It doesn't matter at all if the choice is irrevocable, if you describe your god as having infinite mercy, then literally nothing is unforgiveable. However, that's not what the catechism states. It calls God as "infinite mercy" then says that when something is unforgiveable, it's somehow not a defect in that infinite mercy?
Which is it? Is it unforgiveable or not? Resolve this contradiction.

There is no contradiction to be glossed over. If someone does not want to be forgiven then they cannot be forgiven therefore by their own choice not to be forgiven they are unforgiveable.

Perhaps if you read the Cathechism in context rather than pulling what seems to you to be a contradiction out and them mis-representing an isolated piece of the text to suit your own agenda you might actually learn and understand something about Catholicism, and God.
But it seems you are too narrow minded to consider that.


Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil".267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268
392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies".271
393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272
394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls "a murderer from the beginning", who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275


Now, tell me where the contradiction is if God, in His Infinite Mercy, allows a creature - human or angel - who does not want to be forgiven, and has irrevecoably choosen to reject God, to remain unforgiven?

Perhaps I was wrong the first time and you really do not understand the term irrevocable :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

pueblo wrote: »

OP, I think you might be helped by thinking about how you can effectively 'let go' of the past and forgive yourself as God has...

I hope this story from Eckhart helps..

“A woman in her thirties came to see me. As she greeted me, I could sense the pain behind her polite and superficial smile. She started telling me her story, and within one second her smile changed into a grimace of pain. Then, she began to sob uncontrollably. She said she felt lonely and unfulfilled.

There was much anger and sadness. As a child she had been abused by a physically violent father. I saw quickly that her pain was not caused by her present life circumstances but by an extraordinarily heavy pain-body. Her pain-body had become the filter through which she viewed her life situation.

She was not yet able to see the link between the emotional pain and her thoughts, being completely identified with both. She could not yet see that she was feeding the pain-body with her thoughts. In other words, she lived with the burden of a deeply unhappy self. At some level, however, she must have realized that her pain originated within herself, that she was a burden to herself. She was ready to awaken, and this is why she had come.

I directed the focus of her attention to what she was feeling inside her body and asked her to sense the emotion directly, instead of through the filter of her unhappy thoughts, her unhappy story. She said she had come expecting me to show her the way out of her unhappiness, not into it.

Reluctantly, however, she did what I asked her to do. Tears were rolling down her face, her whole body was shaking. “At this moment, this is what you feel.” I said. “There is nothing you can do about the fact that at this moment this is what you feel. Now, instead of wanting this moment to be different from the way it is, which adds more pain to the pain that is already there, is it possible for you to completely accept that this is what you feel right now?”

She was quiet for a moment. Suddenly she looked impatient, as if she was about to get up, and said angrily, “No, I don't want to accept this.” “Who is speaking?” I asked her. “You or the unhappiness in you? Can you see that your unhappiness about being unhappy is just another layer of unhappiness?” She became quiet again. “I am not asking you to do anything. All I'm asking is that you find out whether it is possible for you to allow those feelings to be there. In other words, and this may sound strange, if you don't mind being unhappy, what happens to the unhappiness? Don't you want to find out?”

She looked puzzled briefly, and after a minute or so of sitting silently, I suddenly noticed a significant shift in her energy field. She said, “This is weird. I 'm still unhappy, but now there is space around it. It seems to matter less.”

This was the first time I heard somebody put it like that: There is space around my unhappiness. That space, of course, comes when there is inner acceptance of whatever you are experiencing in the present moment.

I didn't say much else, allowing her to be with the experience. Later she came to understand that the moment she stopped identifying with the feeling, the old painful emotion that lived in her, the moment she put her attention on it directly without trying to resist it, it could no longer control her thinking and so become mixed up with a mentally constructed story called “The Unhappy Me.” Another dimension had come into her life that transcended her personal past – the dimension of Presence. Since you cannot be unhappy without an unhappy story, this was the end of her unhappiness. It was also the beginning of the end of her pain-body. Emotion in itself is not unhappiness. Only emotion plus an unhappy story is unhappiness.

When our session came to an end, it was fulfilling to know that I had just witnessed the arising of Presence in another human being. The very reason for our existence in human form is to bring that dimension of consciousness into this world. I had also witnessed a diminishment of the pain-body, not through fighting it but through bringing the light of consciousness to it.”

― Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose

This kind of new age approach to life isn't welcome by the majority of religious people.

They tell you that it opens one up to demon's and other unsavoury God's etc....

I myself used to be interested in the so called Eckhart and Deepak woo spirituality etc....

I found it full of contradictions and very unbelievable nonsense, talking about dimensions and energy field's which are very impressive to vulnerable people who are a bit lost in life.

Usually people who are x drinker's addicts or suffer from depression.

The worst thing of all are the movement, who are against something that they say doesn't exist and there's no proof of existence, yet they can't let it all go and spend their time doing something more productive.

Be wary of the new age spiritual way of life, it seems to mess people up more than Religion does.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So much to say...

Yet you said so little...

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Firstly don't use faith and evidence in the same argument. Faith is by definition dedication in the absence of evidence.

Why not? The evidence I have strengthens my faith, especially when if comes to forgiveness.

BTW your definition of faith is erroneous. While proof may not be required there is plenty of evidence to justify faith.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Secondly don't mention evidence in the same argument in which you declare someone/thing/God as the sole arbiter of truth, if someone/thing/God is the only source of truth then the concept of evidence is redundant.

Evidence is never redundant and to say so is foolish.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Thirdly don't call out others in relation to evidence when your entire perspective calls for the ignoring of evidence.

You probably have not read many of my posts. For me the evidence that supports my perspective is everywhere. That you cannot see that evidence is your problem, not mine.
And I will call out others who present manifest untruths, yourself included.