Converting to Another Faith

[RomanCath379]

I sound angry? I’m not angry at all. Again, emotional argument in the place of sincere response. And an “angry Orthodox”? That’s a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

Again, more ad hominems.

I don’t think I look foolish at all, because I’m not the only one bringing this up. Both dzheremi and SteveVH have addressed what you’ve said, with SteveVH even presenting his own evidence to counter yours, and asking you to address key issues he’s brought up that you’ve thus far ignored. You’ve acknowledge at least one post of each, therefore for you to say I look foolish because I’m the only one addressing it…well, I’m sorry, but that only makes you look foolish.

The fact is, you claimed to have asked someone’s opinion on this. You then said they had scriptural evidence for this. You didn’t cite it. You were asked to sound it. You simply responded with, “You sound arrogant.” You respond to every call for evidence with an ad hominem, a statement similar to, “I don’t care what anyone says, I believe this,” or a “You’re being mean to me”-like retort. Thus far, you haven’t cited any evidence for this. This is what people are harping on - the fact you are talking theology and acting defensive with apparently no capability to defend it other than personal opinion. You may not belong to a Charismatic church, but that is a very Charismatic position to take.

Really? Then God will judge me, just as He will judge you in how you’ve treated me here. Cast the first stone BW. And since when is being charismatic a sin? Are you saying that John Paul was a sinner since he was the one who was for the charismatic movement?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Really? Then God will judge me, just as He will judge you in how you’ve treated me here. Cast the first stone BW. And since when is being charismatic a sin? Are you saying that John Paul was a sinner since he was the one who was for the charismatic movement?

I’m going to ask you once more, because you seem to continually be going off topic: please present scriptural evidence for what you believe.

 

[RomanCath379]

I’m going to ask you once more, because you seem to continually be going off topic: please present scriptural evidence for what you believe./QUO

I don’t see you answering my last post…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I don’t see you answering my last post…

Because you keep going off-topic, as I said.

So please, respond to the very first question posed to you: what scripture can you use to support your evidence.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Furthermore, I do not see others here making a big deal out of this. Only you. Are you angry? To think one could say that they believe God give them one more chance before they die, only for you to make it out to be so ugly is really sad. You really look foolish.

Actually, BWolf is not the only one who is asking for your source. Frankly, I think Mr. Wolf has shown a tremendous amount of patience in his discussion with you (I have been following); and I see a very clear pattern in your responses: you hurl insults, instead of answering direct questions. So far, you have not provided Scripture to support your belief, even after claiming it is based on Scripture.

I asked for your source in a previous post, which you still have not provided.

RomanCath,

I’ve been following this discussion. I’m really curious regarding why you disagree with Catechism on this issue. I thought Catholics did not rely upon private interpretation.

Would you say your belief that “Christ gives us one more chance at the time of death,” is based on your own private interpretation?

If not, could you identify the source of this belief? I’m not taking sides on the issue. I’m just trying to understand why there are different views among Catholics on this particular issue.

Thanks,
Anna

I absolutely would never disagree with our Catechism because it is derived from Scripture itself. I am loyal to the Magesterium with all my heart because that is what Christ wanted. Because of stories documented outside my Catechism, people with evidence of life after death, have convinced others that they were given a chance at the moment of death. I would also like to add, yes, I to believe that God is a merciful God, why wouldn’t He comfort us at that hour? If you died as an atheist, and cried out Jesus, is that not a chance at that moment?

You claim you are faithful to the Magesterium. Do you have quotes from Catechism to back up your claims?

Even, if you set aside Catechism and Scripture, momentarily, you still have to evaluate the claim that this man came back from the dead.

Please respond to this post:

RomanCath379,

It sounds like you are basing your assumptions, regarding a last chance after death, on experiences others have relayed to you. You speak of an atheist who died, and at that last moment, he called out the name of Jesus, and was given another chance.

I think it is important to understand that death is often a process. It is not always instantaneous.

Those who were revived and lived to tell their story, may not have reached the final stage of death. Medical records in these cases would have to be carefully reviewed. When the brain is deprived of oxygen, all sorts of dreams, visions, and hallucinations can occur.

At the same time, anything is possible with God. This person, may have truly had an experience with Christ. Something very powerful must have happened to change this man’s heart.

I am a retired heath care professional. I have witnessed some very strange things through the years. In one particular case in ICU, extensive measures were taken to revive a woman in cardiac arrest. Despite all efforts, heart and respiratory functions could not be restored. The monitor showed a flat line. The doctor pronounced her dead, and then had to tell the family that their loved one had died.

Staff started to disconnect the medical equipment. Just before the electrodes for the cardiac monitor were removed, her heart started beating spontaneously. Then, she started breathing again. The doctor had to go back and tell the family she wasn’t really dead. Imaging trying to explain that to the family. That was one of the strangest experiences in my career.

The question is, did this woman come back from the dead, or did the medications and other resuscitation efforts finally kick in? Had she simply not reached the final stage of death? It’s really very complicated. Even with all the medical knowledge we have, there are still unknowns.

I think the key point to remember, in the case you described, is that this person was revived. He may have had a spiritual experience with Christ, but that does not mean he was really dead. If he was dead, coming back to life would involve a resurrection by Christ. I would ask you, “Are we allowed more than one death and more than one resurrection?” Scripture does speak to that issue. I would imagine Catechism does as well.

I don’t think it is wise to take the experiences of those “revived” or “resuscitated,” and apply them to the dead–those who could not be revived.

I would hope that Christ would visit us, before we enter the point of no return in death. I think we want to believe in second chances. I don’t claim to know what happens, when we reach the finality of death. I continue to be a Protestant searching.

I ask you to ponder this question: If you are wrong, and there is no second chance after death; would you want to carry the responsibility of leading others astray?

I await your response,
Anna

 

[RomanCath379]

Actually, BWolf is not the only one who is asking for your source. Frankly, I think Mr. Wolf has shown a tremendous amount of patience in his discussion with you (I have been following); and I see a very clear pattern in your responses: you hurl insults, instead of answering direct questions. So far, you have not provided Scripture to support your belief, even after claiming it is based on Scripture.

I asked for your source in a previous post, which you still have not provided.

You claim you are faithful to the Magesterium. Do you have quotes from Catechism to back up your claims?

Even, if you set aside Catechism and Scripture, momentarily, you still have to evaluate the claim that this man came back from the dead.

Please respond to this post:

I await your response,
Anna

My response simply is this…what difference would it make, we’d be dead. I am ending this on a better note. Goodbye and have a Happy New Year…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

My response simply is this…what difference would it make, we’d be dead.

That is, again, a non-response to questions put forward to you.

What difference would it make, since we’re dead, you ask? Probably the same difference that made the Church Fathers condemn Origen’s version of a redemptive hell. They spoke on matters of the afterlife because they recognized that heresy - even that concerning the afterlife - led others astray.

I might also add your opinion is not simply “God gives us a second chance before death,” but:

An ignorance of Scripture, no direction, knowing nothing about Christ unintentionally. These are the ones who are given a chance at their time of death.

And yet Abraham told the rich man, who wanted his family to have one more chance: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them…If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:29, 31).

So I will again ask you what I asked you many pages ago: present to us some scriptural proof for what you believe.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m still trying to figure out how presenting what I thought was a relatively reasonable, logical argument against just saying whatever we feel like and taking it as truth because we’d like it to be is playing God, but whatever. I would LOVE for what RomanCath379 believes to be true to actually be true (who wouldn’t want one last chance before death?), but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe that it is (at least not any that has been presented here, even after several requests), and there are plenty of reasons to assume that it is not…

Oh well. Happy new year to you too, RomanCath379.

 

[RomanCath379]

That is, again, a non-response to questions put forward to you.

What difference would it make, since we’re dead, you ask? Probably the same difference that made the Church Fathers condemn Origen’s version of a redemptive hell. They spoke on matters of the afterlife because they recognized that heresy - even that concerning the afterlife - led others astray.

I might also add your opinion is not simply “God gives us a second chance before death,” but:

And yet Abraham told the rich man, who wanted his family to have one more chance: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them…If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:29, 31).

So I will again ask you what I asked you many pages ago: present to us some scriptural proof for what you believe.

Er…I know I was leaving, couldn’t resist one more glimpse…this Scripture has nothing to do with what I said…the New Testament is what matters. Jesus Christ.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Er…I know I was leaving, couldn’t resist one more glimpse…this Scripture has nothing to do with what I said…the New Testament is what matters. Jesus Christ.

If the New Testament is what matters (although I was quoting the New Testament, so I don’t fully understand that comment), then please quote the scripture relevant to what you believe.

 

[Anna_Scott]

My response simply is this…what difference would it make, we’d be dead. I am ending this on a better note. Goodbye and have a Happy New Year…

I would not agree that you are ending on a “better note.” You are using all sorts of evasive tactics, and now that none of them are working; you say “what difference would it make, we’d be dead”?

What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean nothing you have said about the dead receiving a second chance really matters, because they are dead? All these posts, and now you say it doesn’t really matter?

Is your “goodbye” translated, “No I will not answer any questions or provide any basis for these beliefs?”

Anna

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

So I have a document on my computer with a list of quotes from various sources. I go to past a quote from Mamanoides and a I go back to read this thread i switch back to my document to look at some quotes while I wait for the next page to load and within seconds i come across some quotes from the Dalai Lama on this subject that i feel might add to the discussion;

---

All (religions) emphasize love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, humility and so on” ***

“Instead of using the nectar of religion to purify the posinous elements of our hearts and minds, there is a danger when we think like this of using these negative elements to posion the nectar of religion.”

“I refer to the claims each has of being the one “true” religion.” It is also true that this depends on the deep conviction that one’s own path is the sole mediator of truth.” “But at the same time we have to find some means of reconiling this belief with the reality of a multiplicity of similar claims. In practical terms, this involves individual practicioners finding a way at least to accept the validity of the teachings of other religions while maintaining a whole hearted commitment to their own.”

I cannot therefore say that Buddhism is right for everyone

“

IT is unhelpful to try to argue…that one religion is better than another. The important thing is surely its effectiveness in individual cases.”

“It is valuable to learn from others”

“People do not convert to a religion outside their own heritage, quite often they adopt certain superficial aspects of the culture to which their new faith belongs.”

**
“In seeking to justify their (converts) decisions to others, criticize their previous faith.” Just because that tradition is no longer effective in the case of one individual does not mean it is no longer of benefit to humanity.” **

 

[Javl]

As the OP of this thread, I have tried to keep my nose and opinion out of it and just read the opinions, learning, etc., of the posters.

But,as an RC, I have to agree with Byzantine_Wolf in his requests from RomanCath379 for scriptural proof of his/her statement. I have read the CCC and understand it, and I have also searched through the new Testament but find nothing to back up RomanCath379’s statement. I am not apologizing for him/her, but it may be possible that the scripture refered to may have been misread or mis-understood.

In my training, experience, and understanding, there may be no second chance after death. But, then again, did not Jesus say that sins may be forgiven in the next world ( except of course blasphemy of the Holy Spirit all you cultists please note ] )?

So, the gist of it is that only God knows and it is up to Him alone to decide after death as to whether or not we get a second chance.

I know some will disagree with me , but that is their perogative. I will not argue the point.
God Bless All.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

As the OP of this thread, I have tried to keep my nose and opinion out of it and just read the opinions, learning, etc., of the posters.

But,as an RC, I have to agree with Byzantine_Wolf in his requests from RomanCath379 for scriptural proof of his/her statement. I have read the CCC and understand it, and I have also searched through the new Testament but find nothing to back up RomanCath379’s statement. I am not apologizing for him/her, but it may be possible that the scripture refered to may have been misread or mis-understood.

In my training, experience, and understanding, there may be no second chance after death. But, then again, did not Jesus say that sins may be forgiven in the next world ( except of course blasphemy of the Holy Spirit all you cultists please note ] )?

So, the gist of it is that only God knows and it is up to Him alone to decide after death as to whether or not we get a second chance.

I know some will disagree with me , but that is their perogative. I will not argue the point.
God Bless All.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I Javl,

As I said in a previous post, I would hope that Christ would visit us, before we enter the point of no return in death. I think we want to believe in second chances. I don’t claim to know what happens, when we reach the finality of death. I continue to be a Protestant searching. However, hoping and wanting something to be true does not make it true.

I do think there is a risk in making a claim that cannot be supported. I did ask RomanCath379, “If you are wrong, and there is no second chance after death; would you want to carry the responsibility of leading others astray?” He did not respond to that question or any other issue in my posts.

I’ve considered the claims of “near death” experiences and claims of people “returning from death.” Even setting aside the issue of Scripture and Catechism in RomanCath’s story, we still have to examine the merits of the claim.

I think the key point to remember, in the case of the atheist who was revived and became a priest, is that this person was revived. He may have had a spiritual experience with Christ, but that does not mean he actually returned from the dead. If he was dead, coming back to life would involve a resurrection. Would it not?

I don’t think it is wise to take the experiences of those “revived” or “resuscitated,” and apply them to the dead–those who could not be revived.

The definition of “death” is debated in the medical community; and it has changed over time. At one point, a lack of pulse and respiration was considered “death.” That is no longer the case. There are too many factors involved in the process of death. Basically, if someone is revived, I would doubt they could meet all the criteria for death.

In my career, I saw a number of patients who were resuscitated/defibrillated numerous times. I don’t think they were resurrected from the dead each time. Many years ago, I worked on a unit with cardiac patients.

One older gentlemen was admitted so many times, and had been resuscitated–from full cardiac arrest–so many times; the doctors told him, “we’d have to beat you with a stick to kill you.” He was a very good natured gentleman, who found humor in his own situation. He knew the doctors and all of us very well; and he had no intention of leaving this world without a fight.

So, that was the long way of saying, I think we have two issues in the case of the atheist, who was revived and became a priest after an experience with Christ:

1. Does Scripture or Apostolic Tradition support to the claim that we have a second chance, after we die?
2. Did the person, who was revived, meet the medical criteria for death at any point? If the answer is no, which I am inclined to believe is the case, the whole issue of being given a second chance after death is moot in regards to the case RomanCath379 relayed.

Interesting discussion, either way.
Anna

P.S. Javl, I know we are way off topic, here. So, thank you for indulging this interesting divergence.

 

[RomanCath379]

Well Ms. Scott, this particular person was dead. No heartbeat (and since you were a nurse, you’d know what that meant), no pulse, he saw everything the doctor was doing to revive him. He said the name of Jesus, was told to go back, and became a Catholic priest. As an atheist, he saw or felt something from God. My opinion and my opinion only, with some common sense here, makes me feel that a second chance was added here…no?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well Ms. Scott, this particular person was dead. No heartbeat (and since you were a nurse, you’d know what that meant), no pulse, he saw everything the doctor was doing to revive him. He said the name of Jesus, was told to go back, and became a Catholic priest. As an atheist, he saw or felt something from God. My opinion and my opinion only, with some common sense here, makes me feel that a second chance was added here…no?

RomanCath,

I am not questioning the experience this man had with Christ, or even whether or not he had an “out of body” experience. I am questioning whether or not he actually “came back from the dead.” I had a friend who claimed she had an “out of body” experience while under anesthesia. I can’t say if she did or did not-but her claim was not tied to a medical emergency.

I don’t think you can compare an experience of someone who was revived, with those who actually die, and cannot be revived. I have successfully resuscitated patients, myself–who did regain a pulse and did start breathing again. I would not say I resurrected them from the dead. There is often a window of opportunity to resuscitate a person, which means death is often a process. It is not always instantaneous.

If this man came back from the dead, that would mean he was resurrected. Would it not? How many resurrections is a person allowed? Is every person who is resuscitated and revived, resurrected from the dead? If so, then there are many people among us who have been “resurrected”–and some “resurrected” more than one.

There is a difference between being revived after the heart and respirations stop, and being resurrected from the dead.

BTW, you still have not provided Scripture to support your claims.

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

My opinion and my opinion only…

So is this admittance that you really have no scriptural support for this, you only said that to sound valid in the face of your fellow Christians?

 

[RomanCath379]

So is this admittance that you really have no scriptural support for this, you only said that to sound valid in the face of your fellow Christians?

Bw, I think my PM’s said it better…enough is enough. My fellow Catholics (is that what you mean?) Have supported me in a harmless thought. You are not Catholic, therefore I do not expect you to understand. You carry yourself off as all high and mighty. I hope one day when you are taken from this life, you are given a chance at your time of death for the forgiveness you need for putting me down about a simple, helpless thought. Only non-Catholics here seem to swoop down on anything one says, so that non-Catholics can come off as all high and mighty as you do. You aren’t even in the church Jesus established, let alone you can say anything about anyone. We also believe in Sacred Tradition. We do not just go by the bible alone. I am totally done with you. You need to practice kindness. You are so off-topic it isn’t funny.

 

[SteveVH]

RomanCath379:

I say this without any animosity. Please read the Catechism. It is an extaordinary book. I think if you will look at most any subject and the Church’s stance, you will be pleasantly surprised.

One of the things you will find out about is the fact that tha Catholic Church considers Eastern Orthodox to have the fullness of truth. It is the Eastern Rite as opposed to the Western Rite. Please stop this nonsense of bashing our brothers and sisters in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Their beliefs and doctrines are 100% Catholic and they have true apostolic authority. Yes, we have the issue with the Pope, but as far as I know that is really about it. They have the same sacraments and an incredibly beautiful liturgy which I admire and even envy in some ways. To be under one leadership would bring us into complete union, but this has nothing to do with having the fullness of truth. Doctrinally and sacramentally we are in communion. They are part of the Catholic Church.

As for your continued stance on “a second chance” after death, I think we’ve probably whipped this dead horse enough. Suffice it to say that to believe in a second Chance after death would seem to be a sin of presumption. The consequences of someone believing that in light of what our Church teaches could be tragic. Truth is truth regardless of our private wishes. My experience has taught me to trust the Church in all things, even if I don’t exaclty “get it”.

God bless.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Bw, I think my PM’s said it better…enough is enough.

What PM’s? You didn’t send me any.

My fellow Catholics (is that what you mean?) Have supported me in a harmless thought. You are not Catholic, therefore I do not expect you to understand…You aren’t even in the church Jesus established, let alone you can say anything about anyone.

This is another ad hominem. You keep repeating this as if it holds any merit. Repeating an argument is not the same as demonstrating it. In fact, what’s ironic about this statement is I believe, if you sincerely study this thread, the majority of Catholics have sided with me, the angry Orthodox

We also believe in Sacred Tradition. We do not just go by the bible alone. I am totally done with you. You need to practice kindness. You are so off-topic it isn’t funny.

I understand about Holy Tradition, the Orthodox have a similar belief (in fact I mentioned tradition when we first started talking). I understand how important it is in Roman Catholicism as well. That’s why SteveVH, one of your fellow Catholics, quoted the Catechism against you. You declared that you didn’t care what the Catechism said (then many posts later claimed to live by the Catechism).

As for off-topic…I think anyone reading this thread will recognize I am, in fact, being quite on topic, and that the only one dancing around any serious discussion here has been you. Let’s review what started this conversation:

I was told by a religious that no matter what you are, at that moment of death, God gives you but one more chance to accept Him. If you don’t at that moment, then eternity in Hell.

I asked:

Who told you that, and how much more valid is their opinion than scripture or Holy Tradition?

You responded with:

They took it from Scripture.

Therefore, I said:

Quote it then.

All you had to do was quote the relevant scripture. All you had to do was respond with, “Of course, here is the relevant scripture, and if you look at this Father of the Church, blah blah blah…”

Instead, here’s how you’ve responded thus far:

No I won’t. You sound arrogant, therefore you can do the work and look it up.

I don’t care what the Catechism says about that.

Remember, a little drama will get you nowhere.

If I want to believe that Christ gives us one more chance at the time of death, I will think and hope that.

Since you are not a Catholic, and don’t believe in the things we believe as the church established by Christ etc…try and cast the first stone, otherwise stop with the drama.

Stop trying to play God here. NO ONE KNOWS until that time…

Bw, you sound like an angry Orthodox. You are distorting what I said and you just keep on harping and harping on that small thought I have. I suggest you concentrate on your own religion, which was broken away from the true church in which Christ established. I am not charasmatic, and I resent you comparing me to others like that. But I am not dealing with one here who is in fullness of the true church, so frankly Charlotte, I don’t give a d—.

(BTW, the quote is “my dear, I don’t give…,” and isn’t spoken to “Charlotte” - it’s given to a character named Scarlett)

You really look foolish.

I think it’s quite clear that, first and foremost, your initial argument has crumbled. Your statement that “a religious” told you this with scriptural evidence has been transformed into the statement that it’s your personal experience and you don’t care what anyone else says (even the Catechism of the Roman Church), you believe in it nonetheless.

You can continue with ad hominems and repeating the same claims over and over again and trying to distract to other topics…but they don’t answer the question presented you, and they reveal to everyone here that you really have no answer. It’s been five pages, and as far as we know you have no scriptural or traditional argument to defend what you say - which, you remember, was the basis of your original point.

Again, I will ask you: please present scriptural evidence for what you believe.