The Pope

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2002 @ 07:34 PM
link   
No, call the red phone, not god. Call the red phone, tell pope the rapist(aka priests) going to hell for all time. Then tell him that I don't need money, so stop asking for it from the people.




posted on Sep, 9 2002 @ 08:58 PM
link   
SITE:"Pope Felix III said: "Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."[1]

TOLTEC:Ok so if fossils are millions of years old guess what Truth? You are commiting a sin, repent brother.
---------------------------
SITE:Blind Obedience to the Pope? Pope Innocent III said: "It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed."[20]

TOLTEC:The first one sounded like a Universal custom. What do you think truth?
-----------------------------
SITE:The Papal Coronation Oath: the vow a pope takes when he is elected:
"I vow:… To change nothing of the received tradition, and nothing thereof, I have found before me guarded by God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;… To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; … To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order should such appear; … To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess. … If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed. Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
… Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone - be it ourselves or be it another - who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition, and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."[21]

John Paul II was the first "Pope" not to take this oath

TOLTEC:If that is true why was he made pope, where is the eveidence that suports that his did not take the Oath. Personally I think the oath stinks given all the crimes commited by the church.
--------------------------------------
SITE
adre Pio Rebukes John Paul II
Antonio Pandiscia is the official biographer of Padre Pio and he was the only man allowed to interview him more than once. He said: "The current Pope went to San Giovanni Rotondo for the first time in 1947 shortly after his ordination. A witness, who has since passed away, told me that Padre Pio was brusque with the young Polish priest on that occasion. I think he could not accept the fact that the young Wojtyla (John Paul II) had worked in the theater before becoming a priest."[22]

Padre Pio once threw two bishops out of the confessional and told them to first make their peace with God before they came to confess. When he was approached about the matter by his superior, Padre Pio responded: "They may be bishops here on earth but the hierarchy in Heaven is not the same as that on earth."[23] It is claimed that when someone asked Padre Pio about the 3rd Secret of Fatima he replied: "Beware of all bishops."[24]


TOLTEC:Ok so what? Allthis estabishes is Pardre Pio dod not like Actors, big deal.

Truth lets get something strait the Pope responds to the word of God and if the church changed it was because of the word of God. Here is the first and best reason to rebuk error. That is besides the matter of the fossils.
------------------------------
SITE:More Heresy in the Land of St. Thomas the Apostle

New Delhi, India, 1986, John Paul II: "Collaboration between all religions is necessary for the good of mankind. Today, as Hindus, Buddhists, Jansenists, and Christians, we unite to proclaim the truth about man. Discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, or ethnic origin are radically incompatible with human dignity."[53]

TOLTEC:Ok so you think this is heresy??
India is not the land of ST Thomas. Its
the land of the New Delhi indians.


SITE
elhi, India, March, 1986: John Paul II went to the center of a marble platform on which Mahatma Gandhi was incinerated, where he took off his shoes, and placed a garland of flowers before this monument, and kneeled down and prayed.[54] (Exodus 3:4-5 "And when the Lord saw that he went forward to see, he called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said: 'Moses, Moses.' And he answered: 'Here I am.' And He said: 'Come not nigh hither, put off the shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.'")

JPII Promoting the New World Order
Delhi, India, 1986, John Paul II said: "Gandhi taught us that if all men and women, whatever the differences among them, embrace the truth, in the respect and dignity unique to every human being, a new world order, a civilization of love can be attained."[55]

In Madras, India, on February 5, 1986, John Paul II had sacred ashes placed on his forehead. Three days earlier, on February 2nd, he had received on his forehead the Tilac or Tika, the red powdery paste of the Hindus, the sign of recognition of the adorers of Shiva.[56] Shiva is one of Hindu's most important false deities.

John Paul II explains in his apostolic letter Tertio Millennia adveniente what "Christianity is the response to the aspiration rising from all religions: from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam."[57]



Truth if you knew anything about other faiths or about how they came into being
or for that matter even tried to undestand other legends from other cultures I would probably be offended. Nontheless the Pope obivously is. As for as who made this site he can pluck off.
.........................
Assisi: Absolute Apostasy
On October 27, 1986, in Assisi, Italy, John Paul II prayed with 160 different religious leaders, including African animists, who are devil worshippers;[58] thereby violating the First Commandment: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." This kind of active participation is certainly not to convert them, and is totally condemned by encyclicals such as Mortalium Animos, (On Fostering True Religious Liberty), Moral Theology, the Code of Canon Law and the Councils of the Roman Catholic Church. Also during this prayer meeting John Paul II allowed the Dalai Lama to put a Buddhist statue on top of the tabernacle in the Church of St. Francis.[59] Commenting on the Assisi event, John Paul II said the 160 false religions "prayed with one voice to the Lord of history."[60]

Pope Pius XI, speaking about inter-religious prayer dialogue in Mortalium Animos, stated the following: "They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less praiseworthy, in as much as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God." John Paul II speaking at the World Day of Prayer in Assisi said the following three times: "All religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in as much as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God."[61] John Paul II used the exact words which were condemned in Mortalium Animos.


TOLTEC: Obviously this Pope is not a racist, whoever prepared this site apparently is.

Tell you what "Truth go to Africa and tell those very same people that they are practicing demonology. Do this in there own words and see what happens next.

This so far is a very stupid site. The next time you ask me to read something make sure its not something used by hate groups to suport racial and religious separatism. This whole site is disgusting.

Gee Thomas thought you were a protestant??????


[Edited on 10-9-2002 by Toltec]



posted on Sep, 9 2002 @ 11:20 PM
link   
For the record truth Jesus said "let not the children suffer." He did not say let not the Christian children suffer. To say the very least truth I would not make afterlife plans if I were you. The site you posted was very racist and really gross. You are by far an example of why Vatican I was righteously reorganized, albeit by the word of God (by the way otherwise it would have not been so).

Again Thomas, you clearly posted that you were protestant what is up?



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Toltec, those sites aren't racist, they Christians who still live in the 1900's and don't know what the internet is for, spreading info, true info. So, to them the little africans are evil and worship satan. And that blah blah blah.


WARNING!! Do not go to a site posted by truth if you want the truth! Or, if you don't want to feel like kicking truth for his stupidity and blind faith!



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Sorry, Toltec, it's "suffer the little children to come unto me." -- which, of course, in our modern version of English translates out to "let the little children come to me."

The reference is one of his sermons when the kids were being held back and wanted to go to him. He said, "it's okay, let them come and sit beside me and listen to stories."

As to children suffering, there's a number of instances in the Bible where Jehovah calls down plagues on everyone (in Exodus he kills the babies of the Egyptians.) In Matthew 11, Jesus condemns whole cities (including the babies and children) for not listening to his preaching and condemns them to eternal torture. He also says in several places that children who curse their parents should be killed.

There's no verse about NOT letting childrens suffer, however.



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Toltec you have no clue who this man is, how can "you" as
a man judge him??

he is anything but racist.

he does nott see a mere skin color as some may do but recognizes like
our religion teaches that all man are 'souls' of god.


This is how we see it.

Why must you always bring race into the mix?

We love "SOULS" of god and do not see color or hair color or such.


Why cant you recognize this??

Traid you don't know this man. he is an excellent man of god who
you (assume) may be racist.

which according to your christianity is judgement.




being racist towards anothers skin color is pure (NONSENSE) and
i can't stand those who are racist.

What would the world be if we were all color blind??


Some will never get this.


Look triad.

the plan of satan is to bring all of the world into one.

meaning, religion, ww economy, ww belief ect..

why?

You and james ma think its good. But thats because you do not understand who satan is and
what his agenda is.


bringing all religions together means that all false religions are mixed
in with the one true one.

for this every body will be in false hood and practicing satanism.

Now would i go to africa and tell them they aare worhipping satan and pagan gods??

No i would not. god will do that.


Also jpoining all religions means "JESUS" is gone. he will be considered fake.

see what i mean?


Joining alll econmies will cause us to be under a world wide "communistic" system and
we will all be under dictatorship.

Your freedoms triad will be gone because of this.

If you did not know, communist atheist have infiltrated our country to bring
it under communist.

When even our country was founded by theist, what is taught in our schools??


atheism.

This is the plan of satan that he will work through his people to
destroy the human race of god and the world.

Its all beingset up for the antichrist.


now triad, please ""read"" aall of that link and stop picking out qoutes here
and there to bash, but actually read all of it.


peace.



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 01:50 PM
link   
this is exactly what the popes role is in the world.

Joining all false pagagn religions along with the one true one.

it is satans goal to destroy the truth of god.

peace.



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I think I know the "truth" with the rapes. Catholics once again twisted the word of the Bible to fit their needs.

Instead little kids come to me, they changed it to come in little children.

And instead of damning a kid to hell for curseing a parent, they changed it to damnation for telling the parents what was done to them! HA!

That is why Cardinal Law never did anything to stop the rapers because in their version, raping is ok. For they changed the Bible enough to have it that Jesus came in little kids. Sick b@$trd$. I may not like the whole "jesus son of god" thing, but using him to make rapeing kids ok is wrong.

Of course, I may be so far off that I can't even see the sun with the Hubble telescope, but hey, nothing is impossible, only highly improbable.



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 03:54 PM
link   
But, Truth... isn't the goal of Christianity to bring the entire world to one religion -- that of Christianity?

Isn't that why you prosteletyze?

If you're so afraid of a one world religion, why aren't you speaking out against the Christian practice of prosteletyzing? You either get a "one world religion" of some sort, or you allow and encourage other religions to exist.

So are YOU a member of the OWR group, then?



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Truth I actually believe in Reincarnation so it actually may be possible we will talk again, until then.

[Edited on 11-9-2002 by Toltec]



posted on Sep, 10 2002 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Reincarnation. A theory here.

White light is you in the new kid being born. If you go into it the kid is born no prob. But you leave the light and kid is born dead, or some disability. I think it a good theory.



posted on Sep, 12 2002 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Well, Seti this is religion and spiritualism so it would fit. See attached site and did take the liberty of posting some other information on Christianity and reincarnation, see below

-----------------------------------------

Reincarnation and the Bible

Biblical texts that seem to imply reincarnation The most "convincing" texts of this kind are the following:
1) Matthew 11,14 and 17,12-13, concerning the identity of John the Baptist;

2) John 9,2, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?";

3) John 3,3, "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again";

4) James 3,6, "the wheel of nature";

5) Galatians 6,7, "A man reaps what he sows".

6) Matthew 26,52, îall who draw the sword will die by the swordî.

7) Revelation 13,10, îIf anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed.î


1. The first text concerns the identity of John the Baptist, supposed to be the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah. In Matthew 11,14 Jesus says: "And if you are willing to accept it, he (John the Baptist) is the Elijah who was to come." In the same Gospel, while answering the apostles about the coming of Elijah, Jesus told them: "But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." The commentary adds: "Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist." (Matthew 17,12-13; see also Mark 9,12-13)

At first sight, it may seem that these verses imply the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah as John the Baptist. The prophecy of the return of Elijah was stated in the last verses of the Old Testament, in the book of the prophet Malachi (3,1; 4,5-6): "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." Right before this prophecy was fulfilled, through the birth of John the Baptist, an angel announced to his father Zechariah: "And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous-- to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1,17). What could be the meaning of the words "in the spirit and power of Elijah"? According to other Biblical passages that refer to Elijah and John the Baptist, they do not teach reincarnation.

At the time when John the Baptist began his public preaching, the priests in Jerusalem asked him about his identity. They asked: "Are you Elijah?" (John 1,21) In such circumstances a true "guru" wouldnít have hesitated to state his position in the succession of spiritual masters (the guru parampara) of the tradition he is representing. However, John the Baptist answered simply: "I am not." His negation suggests another meaning to the words quoted from Matthew 11,14 and 17,12-13. John the Baptist was rather a kind of Elijah, a prophet who had to repeat the mission of Elijah in a similar context. The same as Elijah did, John the Baptist had to suffer persecution from the royal house of Israel and acted in the context of the spiritual degeneration of the Jewish nation, with the mission of bringing the people back to the right worship of God. John the Baptist had the same spiritual mission as the prophet Elijah, but not the same soul or self. For this reason the expression "in the spirit and power of Elijah" should not be interpreted as reincarnation of a person, but as a necessary repetition of a well-known episode in the history of Israel. Another Biblical text that contradicts the reincarnation theory in this case is the story of Elijahís departure from this world. Elijah didnít die in the proper sense of the word, but "went up to heaven in a whirlwind" (2 Kings 2,11). According to the classic theory of reincarnation, a person has to die physically first in order that his self may be reincarnated in another body. In the case of Elijah this didnít happen. So it must be considered an exception to both the natural process of death, and to the rule of reincarnation. Finally, the experience of the three apostles at the Mount of Transfiguration has to be remembered (Matthew 17,1-8, Mark 9,2-8; Luke 9,28-36), when Elijah was identified by the apostles without being confused with John the Baptist.


2. The next disputed text is the introduction to the healing of the man born blind in John 9,2. Considering the apostles' question: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?", it is obvious that the first option (the man was born blind because of his sin) implies that he could sin only in a previous life. According to the classic theory of reincarnation, he might have been a cruel dictator who got the just reward for his bad deeds.

However, the apostles' question about the possibility of having sinned before birth should not necessarily be judged as indicating an existing belief in reincarnation at that time in Israel. It rather confirms that some religious factions believed that the fetus can sin in his mother womb. If Jesus had considered reincarnation to be true, surely He would have used this opportunity - as was His custom - to explain to them the law of karma and reincarnation, as an immediate application to that manís situation. Jesus never missed such occasions to instruct his disciples on spiritual matters, and reincarnation would have been a crucial doctrine for them to understand.

Nevertheless, by the answer Jesus gave to them, He rejected both options suggested by the apostles. Both the idea of sinning before birth and the punishment for the parents' sins were wrong. Jesus said: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life" (John 9,3). "The work of God" is described in the next verses, when Jesus healed the blind man as a proof of His divinity (v. 39).


3. In the Gospel According to John Jesus said to Nicodemus: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (John 3,3). Out of its context, this verse seems to suggest that reincarnation is the only possibility for attaining spiritual perfection and admission into the "kingdom of God". Nicodemusí following question indicates that he understood by these words a kind of physical rebirth in this life, and not classic reincarnation: "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" (v. 4). Jesus rejected the idea of physical rebirth and explained manís need for spiritual rebirth, during this life, in order to be admitted into Godís kingdom in the afterlife.

Jesus further explained the meaning of His words by referring to a well-known episode in Israelís history: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up" (John 3,14). That episode occurred while the Israelites were travelling in the wilderness toward the Promised Land under the command of Moses (see Numbers 21,4-9). They spoke against God and against Moses, and then God punished them by sending poisonous snakes against them. Grasping the gravity of the situation, they recognized their sin and asked for a saving solution. Godís solution was that Moses had to make a bronze copy of such a snake and put it up on a pole. Those who had been bitten by a snake had to look at this bronze snake, believing that this symbol represented their salvation, and were healed. Coming back to the link Jesus made between that episode and His teaching, He said: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life" (John 3,14-15). In other words, as Moses lifted up the bronze snake 1400 years earlier, in the same way was He to be lifted up on the cross, in order to be the only solution, the only antidote to the deadly bite of sin. As the Jews had to believe that the bronze snake was their salvation from death, the same way had Nicodemus, his generation and the entire world to believe that Jesusí sacrifice on the cross is the perfect solution provided by God for the sins of the world.

Therefore the kind of rebirth Jesus was teaching (as well as Paul ñ see Titus 3,5) is not the Eastern concept of reincarnation but a spiritual rebirth that any human can experience in this life.


4. A fourth text interpreted as indicative for reincarnation is found in the Epistle of James 3,6, where some translations (such as the American Standard Version) mention "the wheel of nature" which seems to resemble the cycle of endless reincarnation stated by the Eastern religions. However, in this context the reference is made to the control of speech in order not to sin. The ASV translation states: "And the tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell." The tongue out of control is compared with a fire that affects all aspects of existence, thought and deed, in a vicious cycle. This means that sinful speech is at the origin of many other sins, which are consequently generated, and conduct man to hell. The NIV translation is clearer at this point: "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."


5. A classic example of suggesting karma and samsara in the Bible is often claimed to be represented by the words of the Apostle Paul in Galatians: "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6,7). This "sowing and reaping" process would allegedly represent someoneís acts and their consequences as dictated by karma in further lives. However, the very next verse here indicates that the point here is judging the effects of our deeds from the perspective of eternal life, as stated in the Bible, without a further earthly existence being involved: "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (6,8; see also the entire chapter). "Reaping destruction" means eternal separation from God in hell, while "eternal life" represents eternal communion with God in heaven. In their given context, these verses cannot suggest the reincarnation of the soul after death. According to Christianity, the supreme judge of our deeds is God, and not impersonal karma.


6. After Peter had cut off the ear of the high priestís servant in his attempt to prevent Jesusí arrest in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him by saying: "All who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26,52). Could this be the justice of karma in action?

All four gospels give account of Jesusí rebuke to Peterís initiative. Although heroic, it went against Godís plan ("How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" ñ verse 54). Peter was in this case sinning and, according to the well-known Old Testament law of sin retribution, the sinner must be punished consistently ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" - Genesis 9,6; see also Exodus 21,23-25; Leviticus 24,19-20; Deuteronomy 19,21). However, throughout the Old Testament this law was referring solely to oneís present physical life, by no means to future lives. Otherwise Jesusí words would lead to an absurd implication. If He meant that killing someone in this life with a sword will require that the doer will be killed at his turn with a sword in a future life, then His crucifixion (which followed soon after) must have been a punishment for His sins done in previous lives and not a solution for other peopleís sins as He claimed.


7. "If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed" (Revelation 13,10). This verse belongs to a prophecy that speaks about the end times, when Satan and his subjects will have temporary power on earth. Adherents of reincarnation must be aware that it is a quotation from the Old Testament: "And if they ask you, 'Where shall we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: "'Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity'" (Jeremiah 15,2). This sentence was written by Jeremiah just before the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile (586 BC) and expresses Godís punishment of the sinful Jewish nation at that time, which had rejected Him. It is not the impersonal law of karma here but the will of the personal creator God. He chooses how to punish those who have rejected Him. (See also Jeremiah 43,11, which uses the same words for announcing the punishment of Egypt for its sins.) The author of Revelation used this quotation for assuring those involved in the events to come that God will do justice again, as He did in the ancient times. Therefore they should act in "patient endurance and faithfulness" as Revelation 13,10 adds.

*
As it can be observed, in all situations where "Biblical proofs" for reincarnation are mentioned, the context is always ignored. Other passages used as indications of reincarnation mean, in fact, the existence of Christ prior to His human birth (John 8,58), the continuity of the souls' existence after death (John 5,28-29; Luke 16,22-23; 2 Corinthians 5,1), or the spiritual rebirth of believers in their present life (Titus 3,5; 1 Peter 1,23), without giving any plausible indication for reincarnation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the clergy rewrite the Bible, so that the passages teaching reincarnation were removed? Some people hold that the Bible contained many passages teaching reincarnation in an alleged initial form, but they were erased and forbidden by the clergy at the fifth ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in the year 533 AD. The reason for this would have been the spiritual immaturity of the Christians, who could not grasp the doctrine at that time, or the desire of the clergy to manipulate the masses. However, there is no proof that such "purification" of the Biblical text has ever occurred. The existing manuscripts, many of them older than AD 533, do not show differences from the text we use today. There are enough reasons to accept that the New Testament was not written later than the first century AD. In order to get more information on the accuracy of the present text of the Bible use the following sites:

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts, by Peter van Minnen
Textual Criticism and Manuscript Interpretation
The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity, by Prof. R. T. France

At the same time, if the clergy had, as alleged, decided to erase from the Bible the "compromising" passages about reincarnation, why did they keep the ones mentioned above (concerning the identity of John the Baptist, etc.)? On the other hand, it is obvious that there are many texts in the Bible that clearly contradict the idea of reincarnation, explicitly or implicitly. (See for instance 2 Samuel 12,23; 14,14, Job 7,9-10, Psalm 78,39, Matthew 25,31-46, Luke 23,39-43, Acts 17,31, 2 Corinthians 5,1;4;8, Revelation 20,11-15.) Here is one verse in the New Testament which contradicts reincarnation as clearly as possible:

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Hebrews 9,27-28).
The Christian teaching that we live only once is a fact beyond doubt, being as true as the fact that Jesus had to die only once for our sins. In other words, the unique historical act of Jesusí crucifixion and the fact that we live only once are equally true and cannot be separated. This text cannot possibly be interpreted otherwise. The judgment that follows death is obviously not the judgment of the impersonal karma, but that of the personal almighty God, after which man either enters an eternal personal relation with Him in heaven, or an eternal separation from Him in hell.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the early Church fathers believe in reincarnation?

Early Christianity spread in a world dominated by Greek philosophy. Many important figures of the early church had this spiritual background when they were converted. When addressing their world with the Christian message, they had to do it without any syncretistic compromise to Greek philosophy.

To what extent could they have been influenced by the doctrine of reincarnation? In order to answer this, we first have to understand what was actually taught about reincarnation at that time.


Reincarnation according to Platonism
The dominant form of reincarnation known by ancient Greek philosophy during the first three Christian centuries belongs to Platonism. Unlike the Eastern spiritual masters, Plato taught that human souls existed since eternity in a perfect celestial world as intelligent and personal beings. They were not manifested out of a primordial impersonal essence (such as Brahman) or created by a personal god. Although the souls lived there in a pure state, somehow the divine love grew cold in them and, as a result, they fell in physical bodies to this earthly, imperfect world. Plato writes in Phaedrus about this:

But when she



posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Sick, Twisted, Self Righteous, Insular and Hateful.



posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 08:39 PM
link   
F-D those types of behaviors could be applied to extremist involved in any orientation. Moderates in every ideology tend to think before they react. To presume that a stereotype can be applied to any system of belief or for that matter
any creed or race or color. denies the fact that its membership is made of individuals. Each capable of thinking and rendering an opinion about any particular idea.



posted on Sep, 19 2002 @ 08:50 PM
link   
www.geocities.com...

article on '''POPE INFALLIBILITY"""........



posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 07:21 AM
link   
If my memory serves me well, which in some cases it does not, but isn't the pope supposed to be the vicarious body of Christ on Earth? If that is so would that not make him Christ Incarnate? This sounds too much like another very ancient belief system, where there was a man claimed to be RA Incarnate, and they too worshiped gods made of stone and said prayers and offered things to these gods to bless them. Sounds kind of fishy to me.



posted on Oct, 29 2002 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
Sick, Twisted, Self Righteous, Insular and Hateful.


Like you with them FD.



posted on Oct, 29 2002 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
If their was a secret library, wouldn't it destroy religion. Everything in the bible would be crap. The Church probably destroys every bit of evidence it comes across that dispells the myth of God.


Wrong. The Catholic Roman Church didn't destroy any evidences. They kept everything.

Recently,I've saw a TV show about the Inquisition. They kept everything, any single records, files, letters....EVERYTHING.

They are keeping everything about everything.Even when it's not good for them.



posted on Oct, 29 2002 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The church..

I believe in the church..its the best organised and planned institution in the world. it keeps the lambs calm and blind.

if the lambs are rebelling they can be demons and burned.. the church is a institution everybody has to respect! the church has systematicly wiped out every other beliefsystem, the way of nature and godhood is only for the rich ones with satin cloths..

the church made sure noone has the right to believe something else and i mean with the church the islam aswell its actually all the same isnt it? even the "holy"book is big parts of the kuran.

The church is the richest and cleverest most currupt and devious place in the world and it is beeing used for more than just ritual raping of kids...
why do the lizards need to rape little kids? why do the reptiles need to make the humans believe that god wants more children and whole famalies were build? why did the whole world have to give their sacret scrolls

Why could they burn the mayan culture, australian culture inca culture african culture south american culture, american culture and even the european culture...????????? maybe even the arabic culture has been affected on purpose... why does the church own so much land and wealth? why does the church hide all the sacret tools? why cant we practice magic???

what are the lizards afraid off we humans will find out? that we dont really die perhaps? so that we dont have to fear damnnation and hell so we stop listening to the fathers of the church?? so we find out that in this multydemensional world there is more that meets the eye? more ways of living? more ways of having a society? imagin.. whole society is based on the lowest frequenty humans can bare...
FEAR.



posted on Oct, 29 2002 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The church is evil!!! it will meet my God and face his wrath!
Anyone who does follow it will suffer the same! I said I would
leave, but this blaspheme shall be the end of all of you! I
come to save your souls, I shall pray for the wicked, but shall
not be brought down to their levels. You say you follow the church
spot that the church is good? The pope is one head of satan!!
He will lead the demons as satan gets the evil jews, mauslims, and
anyone else who shy's away from my god together to fight for heaven.
But people like me shall stop them and be taken to heaven for it. I
will pray for the souls of one like Thomas, James, Spot, and the others
who have fallen under the evil ways of satan, but only they
can save themselves!!!

Peace





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join