How do you even begin debunking reincarnation?

[Ahimsa]

That experience also blinded him, though, so he would not have had time to notice a body form.

But bodyform there was. In Rev 1, our LORD is described as luminous, yet HE is definitely a human body (eyes, hair, etc). The difference is psychikon soma versus pneumatikon soma; not spook versus soma.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

All that may be the case, but Paul never says that he saw a physical form.

 

[GEddie]

All that may be the case, but Paul never says that he saw a physical form.

An argument from silence works either way. I doubt you’d have much detail memory of a sight that blinded you, either.

ICXC NIKA

 

[unshinbop]

I have a friend who says she believes in reincarnation.

How the heck do I even try and debunk that?

Easy, you don’t. Those who assert, must prove. It is her responsibility to make a prima facie case for reincarnation. Until the day she does that, you have no responsibility to disprove reincarnation.

If I told you that pink monsters live on the dark side of planet Pluto, would you try to debunk this, or would you insist that, so far, there is nothing to debunk?

 

[Ahimsa]

Easy, you don’t. Those who assert, must prove. It is her responsibility to make a prima facie case for reincarnation. Until the day she does that, you have no responsibility to disprove reincarnation.

Actually, if her friend simply believes in reincarnation, without trying actively trying to convince others of reincarnation, then she has no responsibility to prove anything.

Now, if her friend goes around actively trying to convince other people that reincarnation is true, then should would have to prove or demonstrate the truth of reincarnation.

 

[system]

The highlighted phrase (which is not a dogmatic definition) can be interpreted in a number of ways. The “course” of one’s earthly life does not exclude how that course might manifest.

Even the CCC doesn’t say that it rejects “all forms” of reincarnation, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The uniqueness of the person is quite compatible with reincarnation, as is the idea of the particular judgement.

OK. So do we agree that the Church has not looked deeply into this issue, at least not deeply enough such that a papal or counciliar statement (dogmatic) has been made?

Hi Ahimsa,

I am a Catholic. Remember, besides the glorious teachings handed to the Church, we also have a lot prophecies. And our prophecy is full of destruction and abomination… Thus, I believe there will be overhauling of the Church itself. One of the many causes of overhauling is not being open-minded.

Re-incarnation today is almost scientifically experimentable and can be proven scientifically with the advancement of instruments and knowledge in the near future. Such will make all those infallible statements of the church obsolete, and likewise be considered none-sense in the modern world. This will actually end Papacy, as predicted by some Church saints themselves, and even Nostradamus.

So there is really no need to argue, for it is just a matter of time. Now, if your purpose is to save the Church, so they can make any adjustment before they will be standing in front of the Judge, then that will never happen. The people ruling it are too old and too rigid in their understanding of scriptures to change.

There is nothing wrong with ending Infallibility anyway, because I think even God will never claim infallibility. Because the nature of “reality” is that it can be molded in any manner the imagination can take…

Regards!

 

[paul_c]

Hi Ahimsa,

I am a Catholic. Remember, besides the glorious teachings handed to the Church, we also have a lot prophecies. And our prophecy is full of destruction and abomination… Thus, I believe there will be overhauling of the Church itself. One of the many causes of overhauling is not being open-minded.

The Church is always open to the truth, but the truth does not change

Re-incarnation today is almost scientifically experimentable and can be proven scientifically with the advancement of instruments and knowledge in the near future. Such will make all those infallible statements of the church obsolete, and likewise be considered none-sense in the modern world. This will actually end Papacy, as predicted by some Church saints themselves, and even Nostradamus.

This is unsupported nonsense. What kind of instrumentation could measure whether a soul was reincarnated. This is completely out of the realm of science. And what Catholic saint ever prophesied that reincarnation was true or that the papacy would end? In fact, Jesus himself said that he would be with the Church until the end of the age.

So there is really no need to argue, for it is just a matter of time. Now, if your purpose is to save the Church, so they can make any adjustment before they will be standing in front of the Judge, then that will never happen. The people ruling it are too old and too rigid in their understanding of scriptures to change.

The truth doesn’t change. to be happy, you must bend your will to the truth because the truth will not change just because you want it to.

There is nothing wrong with ending Infallibility anyway, because I think even God will never claim infallibility. Because the nature of “reality” is that it can be molded in any manner the imagination can take…
Regards!

This is a ridiculous statement. Reality isn’t based on your imagination. You may describe yourself as a Catholic but your views are clearly contrary and hostile to Catholic teaching.