It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pre-existence, Reincarnation & Christianity

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Apparently you do not understand what you are reading in the vedas.


Clearly or else . . . how could I believe anything different? Right?


Or maybe you could cite text from your reading which shows the idea of new souls created each time a baby is made. It would be very enlightening for me. Otherwise it is incarnation not reincarnation. I am not saying new souls are never created, just suggesting it isn't every time a baby is born.

Or if you attach this concept to Origen but again he preaches pre-existence of the soul prior to incarnation, so did the act of baby making create a soul? In fact, since early Church fathers believed that God created every one of us in His image and likeness, this accounts for the pre existence of the soul prior to incarnation. You can try and prove that the act of copulating and joining sperm and egg together producing new life also is the act of God creating new souls. But then it would still not be the pre-existence of the soul but more or less the soul being created at the moment of conception.
Technically the soul could pre-exist being born, but that still does not take into account the presence of the developing fetus.
edit on 28-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Why would god put a newborn, innocent, inexperienced soul into a realm that doesn't respect it, understand it and thinks it rules over it? Then judge the soul, but not the flesh, to an eternity in heaven or hell?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Why would god put a newborn, innocent, inexperienced soul into a realm that doesn't respect it, understand it and thinks it rules over it? Then judge the soul, but not the flesh, to an eternity in heaven or hell?


Why are you asking me I am not God?

If you are referring to Christianity then the only belief one needs is that God came in the flesh and lived the perfect life for all mankind and died upon the (double) cross for the ascension of all. All those other stories of the Bible you like to quote so much deal with the concept that man cannot rule over a Utopia and only God could do so. Remember in the Bible mankind was cast out of Heaven, their original residence, to the Earth.

If you want to go down the reincarnation paths then it is your own fault for all the bad things in the world. You deserve everything terrible that happens to you or others because of karma or because you need to learn a lesson.
edit on 28-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


That is assuming God is separate from His creation and can the fullness of himself be in a body. Totally not in the vedas.

"And male and female created He Them". Does that have any meaning for you at all? Could you explain it to me, as it's in the bible and I'd love to get your take on it.
edit on 28-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


That's not how God actually works, that's only the way men have made people believe he works.

70-80 years cannot even begin to compare to an eternity in heaven or hell, so why would god justify an eternity in either based on the blink of an eye? That's like judging a quarterback's worth on whether he completed only one pass or not.

Doesn't sound very logical to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


That is assuming God is separate from His creation and can the fullness of himself be in a body. Totally not in the vedas.

"And male and female created He Them". Does that have any meaning for you at all? Could you explain it to me, as it's in the bible and I'd love to get your take on it.
edit on 28-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


That is why I said in the Bible . . . no $%#t its not in the Vedas you genius . . . .



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You're the one who recommended someone read the Vedas to understand your opinion, not anyone else.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You're the one who recommended someone read the Vedas to understand your opinion, not anyone else.


What in this statement makes you think I was at all including the Vedas in the subject matter?


If you are referring to Christianity then the only belief one needs is that God came in the flesh and lived the perfect life for all mankind and died upon the (double) cross for the ascension of all. All those other stories of the Bible you like to quote so much deal with the concept that man cannot rule over a Utopia and only God could do so. Remember in the Bible mankind was cast out of Heaven, their original residence, to the Earth.
-FBB


ThirdEyeofHorus
Have you ever thought that the gods of the Vedas are describing a process?

Can you explain the symbolic meaning of Shiva?

Manly P Hall made many of these connections when studying and discovered that most describe a mystery school with exoteric practices for the masses and secret rites for the initiates. All of these seemingly coincided with the zodiac and the procession of the Sun.

IE:
5 pillars of Islam and 72 virgins - 5 pointed stars and 72 degrees between each point being the 72 years for the Sun to move one degree in its procession.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


That is assuming God is separate from His creation and can the fullness of himself be in a body. Totally not in the vedas.

"And male and female created He Them". Does that have any meaning for you at all? Could you explain it to me, as it's in the bible and I'd love to get your take on it.
edit on 28-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


That is why I said in the Bible . . . no $%#t its not in the Vedas you genius . . . .


That phrase in scripture still does not say new souls are created every time a baby is born. It implies that God created souls male and female in His image and likeness.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





Can you explain the symbolic meaning of Shiva?


Of course I can. Are you testing me to see how much of this stuff I actually know? Yes, of course there is a continual process of creation and destruction, and in cycles too. The cycles of birth and rebirth. Since now suddenly you know something of the vedas you should know that already. It still does not mean that new souls are created every time a baby is born, or it would not be called RE incarnation.
edit on 28-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





Can you explain the symbolic meaning of Shiva?


Of course I can. Are you testing me to see how much of this stuff I actually know? Yes, of course there is a continual process of creation and destruction, and in cycles too. The cycles of birth and rebirth. Since now suddenly you know something of the vedas you should know that already. It still does not mean that new souls are created every time a baby is born.


I mean what does his serpent, clothing, 3rd eye, and title destroyer of worlds mean.

Did I say that new souls are created every time?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Without the ever present fear of hell, and as you put it, a second eternal "Lake of Fire" an even worse hell......

You would actually put forth a hell of a lot more effort into finding out what is going on, instead of trying to convince yourself you are a flawed creation, and through no fault of your own, must find salvation by making an agreement with yourself to believe that Love is commanding you to accept all of this as the total story of your existence.


Who knows how much effort I've put into finding out what is really going on? You my friend, most certainly do not.

Instead of being fearful of judgment, one should rather look forward to it. Perfect love casts out fear.

A2D



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You implied it.



The act of copulation resulting in conception would happen as a result of a new soul being created.


If not all souls are created every time before someone has sex, where does that un-created soul come from?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Why be so concerned with other people's ideas & beliefs about death, after death and Christianity?
You exist right now.
That much you know .



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You implied it.



The act of copulation resulting in conception would happen as a result of a new soul being created.


If not all souls are created every time before someone has sex, where does that un-created soul come from?


That is cherry picking or you failed to read the entire post as a few lines later I stated my actual answer . . . .



So yes a babie's soul exists before it is born materially into the world.
-FBB


Sooooooooo what were you talking about?

Oh that's right you don't care what my actual answer was so long as you could somehow make it fit your personal views of me and my beliefs.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You just said that not all souls are created before birth. If they weren't created before birth, where did they come from? You're running in circles here.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You just said that not all souls are created before birth. If they weren't created before birth, where did they come from? You're running in circles here.


All souls must be created before birth . . . Even ThirdEyeofHorus wasn't arguing that.

Their argument was about whether it was a NEW soul every birth . . . .

Does this make more sense to you now?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

Greetings Ophiuchus 13,


you all seem to be following the righteous ways... and so hopefully the humbleness in your heart centers will allow the subjective data shared to compile a better picture to learn from..

I'm sad to say, I quit following righteous ways. I took the path with the despised and outcast.

When I was younger, Jesus brought her around, I think maybe it was so she would know me later.

Decades later, I was decades older. Someone looked at me then, and was disappointed. I don't know who that was.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Another thing that devout Christians are unable to accept is that Jesus himself would have reincarnated until his soul was tutored enough to become the leader he was in his final embodiment. It is thought that Jesus was incarnated as King David.


It's also thought that Jesus could have incarnated as Melchizedek the priest...whom Abram supposedly gave tithe to...Genesis 14 i think(don't quote me on that)

(Also would like to add that, while I do not support the idea of reincarnation, it is not at all out of the realm of possibility....as we know, God is not slack but is patient and willing that no man should perish....)

A2D
edit on 28-6-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: sasquatch



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


That's an interesting point. It has been suggested by a few others that Jesus and Melchizedek were the same being. It is also said that Melchizedek wasn't fully human because the Bible says that he had no parents. Also, it's suggested that he wasn't human because he was called the Priest of Righteous, and Jesus said that "no man is righteous".



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join