Thank you so much Garbanzo. I was not expecting a reply let alone such a detailed report of Vatican II. I have copied it to a folder for future reference. I did read the parts on Teilhard de Chardin and 'oh, the other famous cleric', sorry forget. ah. Hans Kuhn, I think.

Throughout my life I have read philosophy and studied many religions. In about 1966, I read the bible in total, after always wondering what it was all about, as in the forties were learned the CCC and some sayings by Aquinas. It was not all that bad. The Marion devotions were a central part of the 40's, for instance, with lovely hymns, and I still remember the Latin words I learned in Choir. Also remember abusing myself as a way of following Rose de Lima, and when talking to another woman about my age, (a little younger) found that she had done similar thing. I believe I have already stated that what might be considered a certain vulnerability with respect to others, could in part at least, be attributed to the way in which I was raised and expectations placed upon me. But no more complaint. I really have 'transcendended' all of that.

I have recently made a remark on this site about how I feel that both SN and EN cling to that intellectualism' that you talked about in the paper. I could tell you many stories of my explorations of these dichotomies during the last decade. I have been 'searching for resolution' between all my education in Modern philosophy, plus being married to a Marxism, who not appreciates my dedication to, may we say, contemplative study, as partially explainable with respect to some mental health issues, specifically PTSD. Not to worry.
I'm presently having 'abundant' problems, still in understanding Aristotle, and am once again ready to throw in the towel. I just can't do it all. I've managed to 'get a sense' of the Church pre-AT, and feel there was a much more contemplative spirit in the writings of the mediaeval church fathers. Is it just me, or is there a possible truth, that after Aquinas, the church 'really' went legalalistic. I am still learning about the 'Church', its doctrine, its position on things like prayer, and meditation in opposition to say Buddhist meditation, and don't always agree with their interpretation. It is true, for instance, that New Age interpretation of Buddhism, places the emphasis on 'self' as the focus of the thought, (whatnot), but within my specific personal frame of reference I have had not problem, (although it took a little effort) to imagine how a representation of the Holy Ghost in a silence which has found 'seeds of karma', or (recognition of 'sin') can for me be made congruent? with the process of repentance, or change. (just my effort at interpretation). I like "Guy Finley's Life of Learning Foundation on the internet in this regard, as a means of getting some good 'pokes'.
So all is well, Hopefully, my comments are meet the standards at the moment on EN for 'coherence' - :)Don't know where things are going. I doubt that you would accept the Naturalism in Kant's philosophy which I have found to be such a helpful influence on my life for instance. In a way, I guess, I can say, it is only because I left the Church that I have had an opportunity to 'learn' something about it. Trust you will appreciate the irony. Thanks again. Hope we can remain friends. (And I do have your link on file.)

Hi Loreen

We are the "ad imaginem dei", so I would not hesitate to think of myself as "I am who I am", an image of "I AM WHO AM".

There are differences between "limitations", and "prone to sin", so I am not sure what you mean by "my terminology". To sin is actually contrary to being human, to be limited is inherent in being human.

I've enjoyed reading your response, but I am not sure I have really understood it. Indeed, we are from different generations, I was born around the time of the Second Vatican Council. I remember the churches being renovated, but not with any fondness. The confusion which has reigned since the Council can I think be better understood through reading Henri de Lubac, a great theologian who suffered much as a Catholic, from the Catholic Church, but who is now revered. His comments and notes written during the Council are telling, and have given me much insight into the state of thought among my prior generation; for example in Sept 1961 he wrote:

Everything essential, in this Theological Commission, is done by a small group of Roman theologians. Sometimes they argue among themselves, but on the basis of a common mentality, common reflexes. They know their field, but little more. One senses among them a certain indifference toward Scripture, the Fathers, the Eastern Church; a lack of interest and of concern regarding current doctrines and spiritual trends contrary to the Christian faith. They are, it seems, too sure of their superiority; their habit of judging does not encourage them to work. This is the milieu of the Holy Office...
The result is a small academic system, ultra-intellectualist without any great intellectuality; the Gospel is forced to fit this system, which is the constant a priori. Father Dhani, who plays an important role, seems to want to minimize in every respect the Person of Jesus Christ: the latter is no longer anything more than one of the “legatores divini”; he is designated thus, in anonymous fashion, in the chapter on revelation…. Several times, formulae are put forward that are intended to make equivalent the progress of revelation up to Christ and dogmatic progress within the Christian revelation.
It is this little system, pushed to the point of madness, that for the past twelve years some have wanted to impose on us as the only orthodox one. Because I will not bow to this, everything I write is distorted. By his personal Votum (wrongly said to be the wish of the Gregorian, despite the protestations of more than one professor), by the composition of several passages of the preconciliar schemas that have been entrusted to him, by his many oral interventions in the commission, F. D. is seeking to make this system prevail and to have those in the Church condemned who resist this in some way….
Their "dogmatics" itself seems to lose interest in the great central dogmas; it refuses to recognize the Christian Mystery in its profound unity; it is transformed more and more into an ideology of pulverized assertions...

You can read more at: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=647

Hmmmmm, I've never tried your technique......sounds interesting. From my understanding, it takes the human body, especially the taste buds, about 21-28 days to form new habits and about 90 days for them to begin engraining themselves in your psyche.

It took me about 30 days to get completely off wheat and the same to get of simple sugars. Why I switched to sorghum and wheat free (not 'gluten removed' by process) beers.....and I still enjoy my golf cigars. Don't do drugs or drink to excess, so I'm ok with my 2 vices. LOL

But I've never tried the visualization route.

trolls or not, you just ignore to rebut my claims

these beliefs of atheism replaced mainstream sciences, and even contradicted itself from each other.

they say that:

1. the universe's origin was just 'pop' out of nothing,, therefore evolution would be false, because ALL things in the universe, including those on earth, just 'pop'..

2. the universe's origin was just 'pop' out of nothing,, therefore evolution would be false, therefore i advise all scientists not to continue science studies because everything just 'pop'

advise to diehard atheist fanatics: don't consider yourselves 'brights' because you just 'pop'....

Regardless of whether materialism is true or not, the idea that minds and consciousness don't exist is nothing but nonsense. It's like saying cars don't exist. While Descartes botched many things, he got Cogito ergo sum right, even though his argument is perhaps circular. The one and only thing I know with 100% certainty is that my mind exists and all philosopher stems from thinking and minds.
I don't know about you, but I'm completely able to manipulate and alter my desires and values. It isn't easy sometimes, but I've done it repeatedly over the course of my life. It's entirely possible that some people do not have this level or self control either for biological (brain damage, deformity, or lack of intelligence) or environmental (no training or belief that it's even a possibility), but just because some people can do it, doesn't mean it's impossible. I know from experience it's possible, and there is no argument one can mount that can override experiential evidence. This is why rational arguments will rarely cause conversion to or from a world view...there are intuitive elements not accessible by pure rationality unless the person devotes the core of their being to rationality (which is probably impossible to do completely).
This article is pretty good, and background philosophy has little to do with free will. Plenty of Christians didn't believe in it, like Martin Luther and John Calvin.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Sorry, neil. I think you're trolling. If that's the case, trolls are pathetic. If that's not the case, there's still no point talking to you.

but even further, given the fact that someone could insist that he knows for sure that free-will is false, then he must be certain that his brain has the exact balance of chemical processes that directed him inexorably to that truth, in that case he wouldn't have to choose an argument over another (because he couldn't), it would be more as if the arguments just have chosen him or that his brain was specially prepared to acquire the truth (any resemblance with some kind of religious mysticism is just pure coincidence ). anyway, everyone else who think differently should be lacking some amount of chemicals and would be pointless to try to convince them unless he could help them before hand with the appropriate amount of brain truth-adjusting drugs.

can you perform a task without thinking? (love, volition, will, etc)

i may request you to perform this task: grasp a pencil in your hand, and with eyes closed, think something, anything your mind can do with your pencil drawn on a sheet of clean paper. if you think that you are drawing a circle, your hand will draw this.. if you're thinking that you just want to draw a star, your hand will draw this.

just like atheists claim that 'unguided, mindless, blind process' did all the events, all the evolution, is really untrue. you can not make task without involving your mind