ScumLord wrote: » It's not that mankind failed the test, two people failed the test and god held every human that ever existed after accountable for that failure they had no part in making. It's a bit racist if you ask me.
lazybones32 wrote: » How is it racist? Or did you mean something else?
hellenkell wrote: » Just sometimes it is hard for me to believe that God will forgive me after all my sins, I want to be a good wife and mother and I pray every day God will give me strength to do that
Frito wrote: » It's been a while since my catechism, but God has already forgiven you, you accept Jesus into your life and his sacrifice on the cross has already atoned your sins. Im sorry you continue to carry such guilt, would it help you to reflect on the gift of understanding either by yourself or with your husband or priest? I suppose it's almost a question of learning how to accept love, to understand the depths of God's love for you that you are worthy of the sacrifice of his son.
sbsquarepants wrote: » What sacrifice would that be? Last I heard the son was living it up in the old mans mansion?
RikuoAmero wrote: » Well, I suppose it would be racist in the sense of holding the entire human race accountable for the actions of just two of its members, much like someone might go "That Mexican driver didn't know where he was going...therefore all Mexicans are worthless!"
hellenkell wrote: » I was raised in a family with difficult circumstances, so I left home at the age of 17 Until the age of 22 I did what I had to do in order survive, needless at that time my faith in the lord was not strong. I worked a lot, was very lonely and met all the wrong men. I am ashamed to admit I've done a lot of sins, I would not blame the men I met because it was my responsibly to protect my body and soul, but I was young and felt abandoned by everyone - my parents, my friends and god as well. When I turned 22 I met a guy, the best guy I ever met, he showed me the way, showed me how real love should look like, explained to me that a'll I've been through was a test from God, that God is strongest for us in our most difficult moments, today I'm in such different place in my life thanks to him, thanks to Jesus. Just sometimes it is hard for me to believe that God will forgive me after all my sins, I want to be a good wife and mother and I pray every day God will give me strength to do that
lazybones32 wrote: » Is this a serious answer? Please tell me it is mid-week giddiness and urine-extraction...
ScumLord wrote: » No it's what I meant and what else would you call it? If anyone else told you you were a sinner and were inherently broken because of something your great, great, great grandfather did wouldn't you find it a bit racist if they were of a different race? If I was to call all Italians slave traders because romans traded slaves over a thousand years ago would that be fair?
hinault wrote: » The teaching on Original Sinhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable.
Frito wrote: » I'm assuming crucifixion is a painful business.
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
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.
and in your case that so called familiarity seems to have breed nothing but contempt.
Just how familiar are you with Catholic teaching?
Or perhaps you are just so familiar with the term irrevocable
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.
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.
but your demonstrations present no supporting evidence
Festus wrote: » 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: » You're right. Guess you just have to have faith that I'm telling the truth.
RikuoAmero wrote: » As for the forgiveness...when and where did forgiving someone require their permission? I've forgiven people in the past that never once asked for it, even a couple of people who were p*ssed when I told them about it.
Festus wrote: » My faith is in God and that He is the only source of truth. There is no evidence that you are telling anything approaching the truth.
RikuoAmero wrote: » Serious yes, and...giddiness and urine-extraction? Is that supposed to be some sort of reference to me being high on drugs before getting a drug exam? If so no. I don't do drugs, tobacco or alcohol at all, nor does my work place require such exams.
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
jobbridge4life wrote: » So much to say...
jobbridge4life wrote: » Firstly don't use faith and evidence in the same argument. Faith is by definition dedication in the absence of evidence.
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.
jobbridge4life wrote: » Thirdly don't call out others in relation to evidence when your entire perspective calls for the ignoring of evidence.
Stealthfins wrote: » 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.
pueblo wrote: » I beg to differ that Eckhart is 'new age'. Christianity has a strong tradition of mysticism that goes back thousands of years, nothing new about it. Eckhart is a Christian mystic. I suspect you are trolling as you imply that you are a believer but then mention the possibility of one being "opened up to demon's and other unsavoury God's etc....". In the Christian religion there is only one God, who are these other gods you mention? Maybe have a little look at your own theology before trying to bring down something you clearly don't understand.
