Saint John of The Cross 9-21-95

St. John of The Cross says,
"Then there are those who, in arguing
so strongly, are basically the weakest in sound belief,
because they are fighting inwardly for answers, and in
their lack of understanding, their lack of capacity to
fulfill their own needs, they strike out in a total lack
of clarity, and confuse issues that, if they would but
listen instead of overreacting, they would find peace."

REVELATION DELIVERED THROUGH FRANCES M. KLUG
ON SEPTEMBER 21,1995 AT 3:28 P.M.

SAINT JOHN OF THE CROSS

" I am Saint John of the Cross. There are so
many areas of instruction, for instruction, needed by all
of mankind at this time, because there are so many areas
in daily living, whether an individual is at home all
day, or out working in the world, or going to school.
Exposure to the habits, the interests and the degrees of
morality that is part of everyday living, has a tremendous
effect on the morals, the values, the standards, the
intentions, the habits, and even the daily practices,
because many people imitate everything they see, and
everything they see others do, when it is attractive to
them.

It is important that the whole world be given copies
of All that has passed through this Miracle of The
Father's Love. When this Miracle first began there was
much curiosity when some heard about It. In others
there was much animosity, and in others there was a
feeling of wanting to attack what was being spoken,
wanting proof of everything that was being said, they
themselves unable to discern the Magnitude of What was
being given Firsthand.

Jealousy is a very serious weakness, because it
many times robs an individual of important understanding
of what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is
evil. Jealousy penetrates human nature, human ego,
human abilities, human anxieties, human intentions,
because of the personality of the individual or
individuals, and of course, numerous other facets
pertaining to upbringing or particular characteristics of
an individual or individuals.

Many times We hear what mankind calls arguing,
regarding the importance of what prayer is like, how it
should be said, and comparing it to those of other
religions, other faiths, other backgrounds. Many times
the one who has the strongest degree of Faith falls short
of being able to explain clearly the value of what they
believe, because of the bombardment of so much
animosity, ignorance, and even cruelty on matters of
Faith and morals. Then there are those who, in arguing
so strongly, are basically the weakest in sound belief,
because they are fighting inwardly for answers, and in
their lack of understanding, their lack of capacity to
fulfill their own needs, they strike out in a total lack
of clarity, and confuse issues that, if they would but
listen instead of overreacting, they would find peace.

Mankind talks about war, its disastrous effect on
everything, everyone, and then mankind discusses how
peaceful things are. Loving God within one's own self,
living daily, personally dedicated to this communication,
to this oneness with God, has a peace beyond any other
peace man can become aware of or participate in.

Children of all ages, some can be very young, and
some can be of a much higher age group, but innately
where there is happiness, agreement, peace of mind,
respect, and different signs of spiritual meaning, whether
they be paintings, sculptures or readings, there is a
tranquillity.

When We hear some so-called preachers of the
Faith expound loudly, deliberately, on various issues, We
hear no point of direction valuable to those who are
present. It is the individual seeking attention, seeking
recognition, and very often monetary measures.

When Our Lord walked the earth His Instructions
were Sound, Quiet, Deliberate, and were Full of
Spirituality that had Direction, had Purpose, had Goal.
He very often spoke plainly, in a Sincerity that was
never mistaken, like hammering His Hand on a table
or a bench, because His Words were so Full of Worth
that His Presence, the Strength in His Voice, the
Direction that All Words were spoken in, had Peace in
Them, because they were directed to the Souls of the
individuals present.

As the Apostles gathered along the way, they were
individuals. They latched on to His Method of
Instruction, because It was personal and yet
strengthening. It had within Each Word understanding,
based on the Direction of What life had been created
for. That is what this Miracle is all about, giving to
mankind of all ages, not just a sensible approach to the
importance of life, but a practical, logical approach to
the Goal of life; not threatening, but instructing.

It is important for mankind to understand that this
Gift of The Father's Love traces back to when Our Lord
walked the earth with the Apostles, and other men. Men
were instructed in how to instruct others. Women were
spoken about with respect, and they too learned the
importance of their place that God had planned. This
Miracle is a Gift of Divine Love. It is now as it was
then. So be it."

Saint Joseph's Hill Of Hope
Brea, California 92822 U.S.A.
www.TheMiracleOfStJoseph.org
All Revelations are delivered spontaneously
and continuously as witnessed by all those
present at the time.
© Copyright 1996 FMK. All rights reserved.
This is used with the permission of the copyright holder.

 

I think you need to invest in Oolon Colluphid's blockbuster trilogy of
philosophical works:

"Where God went wrong"
"Some more of God's greatest mistakes"
"Just who is this God person anyway?"


BTH

 

Well, that about wraps it up for God!

 

Which God?

Theo

 

I'm not suggesting there are any gods, nor was I making an argument. I
was enquiring which of the thousands of imaginary deities you were
discussing.

Theo

 

Are you arguing that there's more than zero? you have evidence for this?

I think what theo meant was - which of the many thousands of gods in
which humans have believed over the millennia would you prefer him to get
wrapped up?

 

I dislike the term Athiest. A person who doesn't believe in Moon-men or
magic chickens isn't an "Amoonmenist" or "Achickenist" and a person who
doesn't believe in flying pig-dragons isn't an Aflyingpigdragonist.

The whole Atheist business is a whitewash by the churches to try to say
"there's something wrong with you if you're not with us".

I've even seen religious theologians claiming that athiesm is a "belief
system" and therefore the same as a religion!!
http://www.enotes.com/religion/group/discuss/atheism-equal-value-christianity-63987
(I bet the Moon-men and Flying-pig-dragon people wish they'd gotten onto
*that* one!)

Not being a god-botherer is simply a "not", not an "ism".

 

Oh ffs goalpostshiftingagin

NONONONONO ffsNO

 

That's why I call myself agnostic... even though I believe the
possiblity of a 'god' is so vanishingly small as to approximate zero
some minute mathematical percentage must remain because I do not have
proof of non existence.


G-S

 

*applause* Yep; that'll do.
Go ahead and believe/worship whatever floats your boat but don't pester
me; I'm apatheist!

 

Yup, you think you're a superior intellect and a legend in your own
lunch-box.

Fence-sitter, or maybe in your case, hill-sitter.

Theo

 

I disagree here Theo. I class myself as agnostic when I don't class
myself as a pastafarian. Atheism to me is another theism and I don't
like them. I hate religion with a passion, but if this supposed god
person knocks on my door tomorrow and carts me off to a land of
sherbet and virgins or whatever they are promised then I guess I'll
believe in him/her. Meanwhile I'll stay agnostic.

Kev

 

Agnostic yes, but *certainly* not the 50-50 each way bet kind of agnostic.
That would be a logical fallacy just as significant.

As Dawkins has said, on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being absolute belief
and 7 absolute atheism as in your example below (i.e there is *definately*
no god) he calls himself (and I tend to agree) a 6.9

Oh, and BTW i made up my own mind before i read or watched anything
dawkins produced. Haven't even read any of his books.

It's a popular strawman that one, yes.

*most* atheists (and I am including myself here) don't take that position.
The words instead are "there is *probably* no god" (as in, it is possible,
but entirely unlikely). oh, and yes Dawkins takes the same position. As
you say, it is impossible to prove a negative.

*however*

most atheists also take the position that there is essentially no evidence
*for* the existence of god(s), and that the burden for providing such
evidence rests on the believers. Without such evidence, the average atheist
sees no reason to believe, in *any* god.

Feel free to try and provide some

 

That seems almost identical to my position... and I'm an agnostic


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:26:47 GMT

If you shape your life around the idea there's no God, that's probably
a form of theism.

Oddly enough, few do. And those who do are doing it because they are
on the talk show circuit.


There's no books, no creed, no things you have to do to contact
your lack-of-god or keep your lack-of-god happy, nothing you can
blame on your lack-of-god, nothing your belief in lack-of-god does
to shape your life or make you happy or sad or guilty. So how can
it be a religion?

I understand that in the wide variety of normal humans there are some
who find they need a frame work to understand things that are
important to them, the "why evil" and "what happens after we die" and
"why are we here" sort of questions.

I'm not one of them, so religion makes no sense to me.

I tend to joke I'm an apatheist, I don't care if there's a god, but
really it's atheist because I can't come at the idea of a god, not
anyone's idea of god. Or gods. Or godesses.



Zebee

 

Yes, I believe you are right but no, I can't accept the "all the
accumulated verified knowledge of mankind" argument. There are still
things to be discovered out there. And how broad that knowledge is we
have no way of telling. I point you back to the head of the patents
dept in the US who about 100 years ago declared that there was nothing
more to be invented.

Maybe the LHC will suddenly give us a telephone line to this supposed
God person? That's why I back off from atheism. I'm prepared for
someone to prove he exists, but seriously doubt anyone is going to be
able to.

Kev

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:19:26 GMT

*which* god person?

Even if you do this "abrahamic religions all really worship the
same one" which said religions deny and with very good reason,
there's all the Hindu ones, Asatru, the Greek stuff, the various
male/female essence ideas from pre-Judaic religions, aminism, jain,
dreamtime.... Not to mention the whole dualism thing.

And of course not all relgious ideas are about "person" at all.

The more I learn about religion (as distinct from half-remembered
Sunday school ideas) in all its variants, the more I'm convinced none
of it makes any real sense. Except possibly some of the Buddhist
ideas about self-actualisation and enlightenment which aren't about
some higher being of separate essence from humanity.

(and hasn't that separate essence idea started a few wars...)


You can take the "River of God" idea and see the religions out
Mesopitamia and Egypt as slowly refining to the current Abrahamic
monotheism (and losing a lot along the way) and see it as people
slowly working towards "the truth", me I take it as people who need
to have some kind of framework to explain things building one, and
taking bits from other people's frameworks when said bits appealed.

Nothing about truth and superior beings and everything about how
humanity does things.

BEcause once you learn more about how the world and people really came
about then the fundamental ideas of those religions make no sense at
all, and you have to abandon them in the favour of some kind of
humanistic mysticism, which is where great chunks of the Anglican
Church seem to have headed.

OK, some folk find they manage better with a religious framework. I
can't empathise at all, because I am just not that kind. But enough
people I respect *are* the kind that embrace religion (and given
current research that probably makes 'em more human than I...) well
let them. No skin off my nose as long as they let me ignore it.

Pascal's Wager is rubbish, and it's rubbish whether you call it that
or mutter nonsense about the LHC.

And if you are quoting a public servant about the future of science
you are quoting someone with less claim to knowledge than Thomas
Watson of IBM with the famous "only 5 computers quote" and with about
as much reason in this discussion.

Zebee

 

I believe in the God of Punctures, a malevolent deity who *always* [1]
materialises after some infidel riding with me mutters the fatal foolish
curse -

"Umm, haven't had a puncture/flat in a while ..."

[1] with greater fervour and frequency on the pushie [2] - but pilgrims -

Do Not Take His Name In Vain.

Best, Andrew

[2] more of slow leak thing on the triumph

Believe what you want to; just try not to cause too much damage while your
at it.

 

The reason you call yourself that is because of the strawman ;-)

I and almost all Atheists would consider ourselves "Agnostic Atheists"
-that is "there is almost certainly no god, but a negative is impossible
to prove"

 

Argument to moderation

simply because i've done this dance before and know how it goes.
I mention dawkins, then you (generalised 'you' here) make an issue of it
and claim i'm blindly following him.

That is a matter for definition of terms. the term "Atheism" as it is used
*by Atheists* means not "there is *definately* no (theistic) God(s)" but
rather means "It is impossible to know whether there are any (theistic)
God(s) but there being no evidence, it is entirely unlikely that there are"

see above - it depends how you define the terms. most atheists use the term
because it is less unwieldy than "agnostic Atheist" and because it is a more
accurate description of how they feel than "agnostic", which implies the above
argument to moderation "the truth is somewhere in the middle".

I'm well aware of that, but in the absence of evidence all sorts of claims
can be made for which no evidence of absence is even possible.

(assuming you meant

The problem is that *in general* Agnostic is used by those who claim that,
as it is impossible to know, the odds are (more or less) 50-50 as to whether
God(s) exist or not.

The media falls into the same trap on MANY issues, and ends up giving nutters
airtime in a failed false quest for "Balance" (in the Fox News sense) - see
for example the aussie media recently fawning over Christopher "lord" Monckton.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance)