Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword
 


If 99% of scripture, for example, is in support of the rejection of reincarnation, and 1% can be read to support it,


Prove it.

You do understand what the term "for example" means, right?

Reincarnation is not a Christian or Jewish belief, and no amount of wishing or twisting of scripture will make it so.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Your "for example" is a passive aggressive assault on the arguments that I presented. You have nothing to present to counter my arguments so you accuse me, "for example", of twisting the scripture to fit my beliefs, which is exactly what you are doing!

If 99% of scripture argues against reincarnation, prove it!

Your insinuations don't help your argument, they just prove that you don't have one. Your narrow definition of what is Christian and your argument that "those" Christians and "those" Christians alone "own" Jesus, and that Christian and biblical philosophy discussions, should be discussed by Christians and Christians alone, and all others should butt out, also doesn't help your argument.

Basically, all you've got is "I'm right and you're wrong".



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Basically, all you've got is "I'm right and you're wrong".

No, what I have is "my beliefs are compatible with scripture, as a whole, while yours are not." We've been through this many times before -- the passages which supposedly support reincarnation are either taken out of context or misrepresented.

Again, why do you insist on changing what Christianity is in order to support your beliefs which are incompatible with it? Why not just dismiss the Bible as being irrelevant to you and find something that is not?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The historical records of the early church shows that between the third and the fifth century, the Catholic church issued a number of documents that effectively banned the idea of reincarnation as heresy. This is a fact that is provable for anyone who cares to do a bit of research. In fact, some scholars assert that the edict to ban reincarnation as heresy did not receive papal approval. Therefore, some argue that this edict is not official church doctrine.

The fact that there is no Papal edict, but the church made a determined effort to ban reincarnation as heresy anyway, clearly demonstrates that the concept of reincarnation was part of early Christianity, and the attempt to ban the profession of it's belief was not a unified philosophy within the church, but was motivated purely by and about about control. This is simply a historical fact which no one, at least no one who is willing to face reality, can deny


So when you present an argument against abortion by asking 'What would Jesus do?" and you make the assumption that all unborn souls are innocent, as a Christian given, you opened up the argument to the question, "Did Jesus ever teach that souls of the unborn are all innocent? Did Jesus teach that every fertilized egg begets a shiny new innocent soul? The answer is clearly and unequivocally "NO"!




edit on 27-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


The historical records of the early church shows that between the third and the fifth century, the Catholic church issued a number of documents that effectively banned the idea of reincarnation as heresy. This is a fact that is provable for anyone who cares to do a bit of research. In fact, some scholars assert that the edict to ban reincarnation as heresy did not receive papal approval. Therefore, some argue that this edict is not official church doctrine.

What are your sources for these claims? Historical sources, not the unfounded New Age drivel that you posted earlier. And there is a world of difference between something being declared heretical and something being taught. It would come as no surprise that something like reincarnation was declared heresy at some point, but that does not mean that it was previously taught as Christian orthodoxy.

The Catechism includes this text:


Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed,we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once." There is no "reincarnation" after death. (Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church: 1013)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


The historical records of the early church shows that between the third and the fifth century, the Catholic church issued a number of documents that effectively banned the idea of reincarnation as heresy. This is a fact that is provable for anyone who cares to do a bit of research. In fact, some scholars assert that the edict to ban reincarnation as heresy did not receive papal approval. Therefore, some argue that this edict is not official church doctrine.

What are your sources for these claims? Historical sources, not the unfounded New Age drivel that you posted earlier. And there is a world of difference between something being declared heretical and something being taught. It would come as no surprise that something like reincarnation was declared heresy at some point, but that does not mean that it was previously taught as Christian orthodoxy.

The Catechism includes this text:


Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed,we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once." There is no "reincarnation" after death. (Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church: 1013)


What claims are you questioning? Are you saying that there were no edicts against reincarnation? You just presented one. Are you saying that no early church fathers discussed the concept of reincarnation? I've already provided those sources.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
What claims are you questioning? Are you saying that there were no edicts against reincarnation? You just presented one. Are you saying that no early church fathers discussed the concept of reincarnation? I've already provided those sources.

I'm questioning your claim that reincarnation was orthodox church teaching prior to it being banned.

And no, you didn't provide any sources on the Early Church Fathers -- your Origen quotes are about the pre-existence of the soul, not reincarnation.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Origen

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? www.earlychristianwritings.com...



It can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body... then it is beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things their bodies are once more annihilated. They are ever vanishing and ever reappearing. —Origen

LINK

St Gregory

"...But since there is a necessity that the defilements which sin has engendered in the soul as well should be removed thence by some remedial process, the medicine which virtue supplies has, in the life that now is, been applied to the healing of such mutilations as these. If, however, the soul remains unhealed, the remedy is dispensed in the life that follows this.." – Great Catechism.
www.ccel.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Where do you see reincarnation in any of that?

Seriously, use the "u" tag to underline what you think is reincarnation in your quotes.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Consider it ALL underlined. It's all about reincarnation.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


In other words, no, there's nothing specific about reincarnation in there.

The closest thing that I can see in the St. Gregory quote (clue: if someone is a Roman Catholic saint, they did not teach anything heretical, so just from his title you know that he didn't teach reincarnation) is the "the remedy is dispensed in the life that follows this", which clearly is referring to the afterlife, not a reincarnated life. It says "the life", not "the lives".

I still don't know why you're so hung up on this -- you've yet to provide ANY proof that reincarnation was ever an orthodox church teaching, and all you've managed to come up with is quotes from a couple of people (one a heretic) that have nothing to do with reincarnation.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


Consider it ALL underlined. It's all about reincarnation.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


Consider it ALL underlined. It's all about reincarnation.

Yes, I saw that the first time. Unfortunately, that's a fail, because there is nothing in there that is solely supportive of reincarnation -- Origen is talking about pre-existance, and St. Gregory is talking about the afterlife. Since you're unwilling to provide specifics to back up your claim that orthodox Christianity is wrong in its rejection of that, I guess that this discussion is over.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Catholics should urge the pedophile priests to leave the Catholic Church first, rather than the Archbishops moving the perps from parish to parish over decades until the statute of limitations expire.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 

What are you, a time traveller from the 1990s?

Here is a graph of instances of child abuse by the clergy from 1931 to 2011 in the Los Angeles diocese. Note the drop off in the 1980s -- that's the result of the church dismissing abusive clergy and turning them over for prosecution.




posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


If you can't understand the spirit of the discussion that the quotes I cited impart, I'm not willing to go through it with you word for word. I don't really believe that you are that dense, so I'm assuming that I have encountered your obtuse, "I don't understand you" argument again.

Because I think that we've gone off topic enough in this thread already, I've started another thread on the subject.

If you still want to take apart these quotes, word by word, you're welcome to do that there.

Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity,

edit on 28-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by UnBreakable
 

What are you, a time traveller from the 1990s?

Here is a graph of instances of child abuse by the clergy from 1931 to 2011 in the Los Angeles diocese. Note the drop off in the 1980s -- that's the result of the church dismissing abusive clergy and turning them over for prosecution.



I time traveled out of the 1990's to 2007 when the LA archdiocese paid $ 660 million to abuse victims. I'm in the Philadephia archdiocese, so you're LA graph means nothing to me.

www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnBreakable

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by UnBreakable
 

What are you, a time traveller from the 1990s?

Here is a graph of instances of child abuse by the clergy from 1931 to 2011 in the Los Angeles diocese. Note the drop off in the 1980s -- that's the result of the church dismissing abusive clergy and turning them over for prosecution.



I time traveled out of the 1990's to 2007 when the LA archdiocese paid $ 660 million to abuse victims. I'm in the Philadephia archdiocese, so you're LA graph means nothing to me.

www.nbcnews.com...

You apparently glossed over this in your source article:


However, more than 500 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were generated by a 2002 state law that revoked for one year the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse.

They were old claims, not from 2007.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



I realize the payout was a result of claims prior to 2007. My point is $660 million is a lot of dosh for an institution just in LA which is so against the "perversion" of homosexuality to pay because their own "men" of the cloth can't keep it in their pants around prepubescent children, mostly little boys. That, my friend, is the height of hypocracy. WWJD?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 


You will not find me defending pedophile priests or the church administrators whose ineptitude allowed such reprehensible behaviour to occur -- my sole point in this is that your statement that the church has made no effort to deal with it and that it is an ongoing problem is invalid.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join