think about it - why on earth would I be interested in judging you or being condescending to you? That's not going to happen. You simply have to trust that as being a fact on which I give you my word. Hence I can't in honesty apologise for something I didn't do. You are a person I love, that is the foundation.
But I would return to the pure philosohical analysis of the danger of 'signs' - there is a difference between what Jung called 'synchronicity' (patterns in life which are pointing toward a path which God intends for us - Carl Jung remained a committed Christian, feeling it most beautifully captured the transcendant in human existence) and 'divination'.
Divination is a step beyond (for most people but not you apparently) a merely passive view of "patterns", a step into actively seeking out knowledge "too wonderful for me to attain" as the Psalm puts it.
I was merely saying that, in sum, if there is a divine and spiritual energy in life then it logically does not follow that we can fully embrace it with our human faculties whilst we're alive. Why? Because to do so would make the clearly real, free will of the human being a lie - if everything is ordained and destined then there is simply no choice in life.
Essentially, when any monotheist prays they are asking the Divine to open up those 'patterns' more clearly, as opposed to asking 'Make this go my way'.
And as far as I understand Jung he suggests (as does Freud among others) that the healthiest way to do that as a spiritual person is to be (no joke, I assure you) a Catholic or to be a mainstream Christian.
Why? Because Catholicism is earthy, honest, based on an integral philosophy which is logical, does not have time for fundamentalism, and believes that to be a good person is to DO something in this life and not just talk about an internal peace. Freud especially loved the Catholics because he felt their theology (entirely based on love and self-sacrifice) had a consistency which other religions did not.
That does not mean the Church says only Catholics go to Heaven.
Yet this much must be understood - the Church over two thousand years has not structured a system of interpretation, it has merely responded to categorical Truth. Saying that runs *completely* counter to the enter spirit of this present age, in which No Thing Can Be True - all is relative. It affects every atom of our public life - aspirations, desires, relationships, politics, media etc. If you read Thomas Aquinas and the 5 Proofs etc you begin to see that what the Church claims about Christ is not one of many options but a system of pure reason. Yet we react to this with violence on the simple grounds that the man of the 21st century despises with vehemence the notion that there might be a better way to be and to live. "Why should I?! Aren't my views valid?!" is the usual reponse.
Well yes, one's feelings matter. But they can't affect truth. Few are the individuals who sit back these days and say, "Gosh...what if I'm wrong and the old, traditional thing is actually true?!"
I ask myself if it is true every day. Every day.
Which is why, revealingly, a believer is far better at arguing the positions of Atheism than an atheist is at arguing the positions of Faith - one side actively engages the notion of doubt whereas the other generally does not.
ah, dave, i think you are a very generous and beautiful man. i don't really want to engage in a theological debate, so let's just be happy for each other's decisions and trust that we are both doing what our hearts think is best.
But I would return to the pure philosohical analysis of the danger of 'signs' - there is a difference between what Jung called 'synchronicity' (patterns in life which are pointing toward a path which God intends for us - Carl Jung remained a committed Christian, feeling it most beautifully captured the transcendant in human existence) and 'divination'.
Divination is a step beyond (for most people but not you apparently) a merely passive view of "patterns", a step into actively seeking out knowledge "too wonderful for me to attain" as the Psalm puts it.
I was merely saying that, in sum, if there is a divine and spiritual energy in life then it logically does not follow that we can fully embrace it with our human faculties whilst we're alive. Why? Because to do so would make the clearly real, free will of the human being a lie - if everything is ordained and destined then there is simply no choice in life.
Essentially, when any monotheist prays they are asking the Divine to open up those 'patterns' more clearly, as opposed to asking 'Make this go my way'.
And as far as I understand Jung he suggests (as does Freud among others) that the healthiest way to do that as a spiritual person is to be (no joke, I assure you) a Catholic or to be a mainstream Christian.
Why? Because Catholicism is earthy, honest, based on an integral philosophy which is logical, does not have time for fundamentalism, and believes that to be a good person is to DO something in this life and not just talk about an internal peace. Freud especially loved the Catholics because he felt their theology (entirely based on love and self-sacrifice) had a consistency which other religions did not.
That does not mean the Church says only Catholics go to Heaven.
Yet this much must be understood - the Church over two thousand years has not structured a system of interpretation, it has merely responded to categorical Truth. Saying that runs *completely* counter to the enter spirit of this present age, in which No Thing Can Be True - all is relative. It affects every atom of our public life - aspirations, desires, relationships, politics, media etc. If you read Thomas Aquinas and the 5 Proofs etc you begin to see that what the Church claims about Christ is not one of many options but a system of pure reason. Yet we react to this with violence on the simple grounds that the man of the 21st century despises with vehemence the notion that there might be a better way to be and to live. "Why should I?! Aren't my views valid?!" is the usual reponse.
Well yes, one's feelings matter. But they can't affect truth. Few are the individuals who sit back these days and say, "Gosh...what if I'm wrong and the old, traditional thing is actually true?!"
I ask myself if it is true every day. Every day.
Which is why, revealingly, a believer is far better at arguing the positions of Atheism than an atheist is at arguing the positions of Faith - one side actively engages the notion of doubt whereas the other generally does not.
Quo Vadis, my friend?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment