How do you even begin debunking reincarnation?

[Julia_Mae]

Thanks. (I’ll put links scattered here and there.) It’s interesting to note that the only conciliar condemnation of the soul’s pre-existence (and, thus, reincarnation/rebirth), is in the context of Origen’s *apokatastasis *(the so-called “monstrous restoration”), the idea that since we all come from God (our souls existed with God before being born in physical bodies), we will all definitively and without question return to God.

“Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light
and no more be thrust back into the illusion of earth.”
Synesius - Bishop of Ptolemais circa 400 A.D.

Origen wasn’t the only one.

Thus, one could argue that the primary reason pre-existence (and by implication reincarnatin/rebirth) was rejected by the Church, was because it was too closely associated with an idea that did not encourage real moral and ethical discipline and devotion: if we’re all headed back to God, why be good or do good? It’s conceivable that if pre-existence and reincarnation/rebirth were not easily misinterpreted as justifying a lax spiritual life, then the condemnation would not have occurred. But what’s done is done.

 

[passer_by]

I have a friend who says she believes in reincarnation.

How the heck do I even try and debunk that? Of course I’ll have to go into some metaphysical field, but still…

And that reminds me, with such radical different beliefs across the world, how in the world did the Christian missionaries convert, for example, those in Feudal Japan who practiced Buddhism? The person who immediately comes to mind is St. Francis Xavier. I suppose the fact that one can say that Christ was some sort of samarai sacrificing himself for his lord is easy enough, but how does one go into the more metaphysical doctrines?

Thanks

I suggest stressing the resurrection of Christ.

If the resurrection is true, then Christ’s claim as to who he was is true. His teachings are therefore worthy of belief over lets say someone like Buddha. Christ had defeated death. More or less, what we all yearn for is eternal life and the first person we know to attain it was Christ. So why not believe him?

That would be the more positive approach and I think the most easier to understand for a lay person. The other approach would be to show faults in Buddhism (or religion that believes in reincarnation) but that could require some philosophical arguments which might not be understandable if both parties aren’t using the words in the same way etc. Thing to keep in mind is that Eastern Philosophy is different from Western.

So I suggest using the resurrection. The underlying logic would be, if Christ rose from the dead, is there any reason to doubt his teachings?

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I have a friend who says she believes in reincarnation.

How the heck do I even try and debunk that? Of course I’ll have to go into some metaphysical field, but still…

And that reminds me, with such radical different beliefs across the world, how in the world did the Christian missionaries convert, for example, those in Feudal Japan who practiced Buddhism? The person who immediately comes to mind is St. Francis Xavier. I suppose the fact that one can say that Christ was some sort of samarai sacrificing himself for his lord is easy enough, but how does one go into the more metaphysical doctrines?

Thanks

Lets see, I take a Corapian/Vorisian/Mangy dog approach to these things,

Reincarnation: the process by which you screw up your life to the extent that you either compensate yourself with a highter life or punish yourself with a lower existence to eventually “work out your karma” and eventually reach Nirvana. Because you are your own god or any variety of god you choose to protect you from “bad karna”.

Reincarnation essentially negates the Divinity of Christ and His Sacrifice on the Cross. It renders His sacrafice useless because “we can save ourselves”.

Like there’s another “way”. Which also denies His words, " I am the truth and the way and the life. No one goes to the Father except by me".

It’s not what “Jesus would do or say” it’s more what you would do or say…be a catholic…that’s all that you need to be.

 

[paul_c]

It’s interesting to note that the only conciliar condemnation of the soul’s pre-existence (and, thus, reincarnation/rebirth), is in the (the so-called “monstrous restoration”), the idea that since we all come from God (our souls existed with God before being born in physical bodies), we will all definitively and without question return to God. Thus, one could argue that the primary reason pre-existence (and by implication reincarnatin/rebirth) was rejected by the Church, was because it was too closely associated with an idea that did not encourage real moral and ethical discipline and devotion: if we’re all headed back to God, why be good or do good? It’s conceivable that if pre-existence and reincarnation/rebirth were not easily misinterpreted as justifying a lax spiritual life, then the condemnation would not have occurred. But what’s done is done
There’s a Hindu renaissance occurring as we speak, and a large part of the renaissance is the purification of the corrupted (mis)understandings of reincarnation/rebirth that have dogged Hindu history for too long, particularly in the form of a rigid, birth-based caste system. There’s a positive side to any sort of birth-based social system: such systems are able to survive for millennia, because the birth-based practices help keep alive traditions that otherwise would have disappeared. Thus, we have modern-day brahmin families who have been memorizing and reciting Hindu scriptures for at least 3000 to 4000 years, if not more. (And Judaism likewise, may be seen as following a largely birth-based social system as well, thus accounting for its long survival.)

The Hindu renaissance is a result both of internal and external challenges. Internal, because Hindus throughout the centuries have been critical of the corrupted misunderstandings of doctrines in their own religions, and have sought to change them, with success in some areas and less success in others. External, because the Islamic and Christian invasions of the past 800 years have presented non-Hindu critiques of those (mis)understandings. What this indicates, I believe, is that since each religion emphasizes certain ideas, all religions have some positive criticism to offer all other religions. Islam can help Christianity not de-emphasize God’s unity, while Christianity can help Islam not de-emphasize God’s immanence. Likewise, Islam and Christianity (as well as Buddhism and Sikhism) can help Hinduism purify its understanding of family and caste; and Hinduism (and Buddhism) can help Christianity see the ways in which reincarnation/rebirth might actually help some people be better Christians.

Of course, many Christians do believe in reincarnation/rebirth. Twenty-five percent of Catholics do, and there is a whole denomination that expressly teaches it. But it’s also interesting to note that many Hindus don’t emphasize or believe in reincarnation/rebirth. There are many reasons for this. Some Hindus de-emphasize or reject reincarnation/rebirth because they (e.g., the Vira Saivas) see it as too closely associated with the oppression of the untouchables. Other Hindus are more philosophical about it, arguing that from the perspective of “only God exists”, there is no separate “creation”, no separate “soul” that truly, ultimately, exists apart from God, so how can such a soul “reincarnate”? Still other Hindus take a more pragmatic approach: “If I devote myself exclusively to God, and if it’s God’s will that I reincarnate or don’t reincarnate, then that is totally God’s prerogative. My only desire is to follow His Will.”

But, I bring all of this up to show that within Hinduism (and Buddhism) reincarnation/rebirth is not conceptualized as something that has always existed, or will always exist, or as something that is the ultimate Truth. Reincarnation/rebirth is provisionally true, non-ultimately true, perhaps true from one perspective, but not true from another perspective. The only Real Truth is God, the Deathless, the One Divine Radiant Person, the Source of all birth and death.

Its interesting that the article you quote on 25% of Catholics believing in re-incarnation is actually explaining that those 25% have been mislead and don’t understand the teachings of the church. Any you make it sound like there is a Catholic group that expressly teaches reincarnation - Unity is not in the least bit a Catholic group.

There are certain truths that are shared by all religions with Catholicism but reincarnation is not one of them. Reincarnation does not help people be better Christians. It distracts them from the Truth that they have one life to pursue love of God and neighbor and after that life they will be judged on their love. In the worst case, someone who is expecting another chance in the next life, might be condemned for not taking appropriate steps in this , their only life.

 

[paul_c]

You don’t know that, you can’t even define what “the moment of conception” is. The Church, not knowing exactly when or how God attaches (for want of a better word) the soul to the body, defaults to conception, that is: this is what we presume because in this matter the most conservative stance is necessary. Bodies stay in caskets or urns while their previous occupants go to Heaven or Purgatory. That is, we exist without them.

Julia,
Just be careful. The Church very specifically teaches that the human being consists of both body and soul. And the chruch also teaches, undeniably - its in the creed - that there is resurrection of the body.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia,
Just be careful. The Church very specifically teaches that the human being consists of both body and soul. And the chruch also teaches, undeniably - its in the creed - that there is resurrection of the body.

Not of the physical body.

 

[paul_c]

Not of the physical body.

Bodies are by definition physical. They aren’t saying resurrection of the spririt for a reason.

 

[GEddie]

Not of the physical body.

Your pneumatikon soma IS physical. As solid as our LORD. They could touch HIS limbs! They could hug him, until HE told them not to !

ICXC NIKA!

 

[Julia_Mae]

Bodies are by definition physical. They aren’t saying resurrection of the spririt for a reason.

These bodies, the ones we are in - going to rot if we don’t burn them up or are not eaten by sharks. We are not getting them back.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Your pneumatikon soma IS physical. As solid as our LORD. They could touch HIS limbs! They could hug him, until HE told them not to !

ICXC NIKA!

Matter is a function of Time/Space. We are not going to be here. Jesus manifested Himself in a physical body after the Resurrection, here, in Time/Space. Heaven: not here. Over there. Over there: no Time/Space. No matter. Whatever we have, will not be this.

 

[GEddie]

Matter is a function of Time/Space. We are not going to be here. Jesus manifested Himself in a physical body after the Resurrection, here, in Time/Space. Heaven: not here. Over there. Over there: no Time/Space. No matter. Whatever we have, will not be this.

It is still a body: pneumatikon SOMA, is by definition a body. Head, hands, feet, etc. Just like our LORD. HE did not cast aside his human soma, but took it up by Resurrection. And although our natural soma is lost, as with the seeds, a new one that is just as “bodily” as the one we breathe in now, will be formed, as S. Paul said.

Whatever replaces our known space and time in Eternity, it will be a realm for BODIES to move around in. That’s Church teaching; not just philosophical pondering.

ICXC NIKA!

 

[GEddie]

Just another thought. Resurrection is literally a “rising again”. It is your body that will lie dead, so it can only be as a BODY that you rise again!

Spirits cannot lie down, as they have no dimensions; only BODIES can lie down or rise again.

ICXC NIKA!

 

[illusion_buster]

Julia,
Just be careful. The Church very specifically teaches that the human being consists of both body and soul. And the chruch also teaches, undeniably - its in the creed - that there is resurrection of the body.

I know the Church teaches this… but… we ALL know that the body decays into dust… and that the Church acknowleges this with " remember man thou art but dust and unto dust thou shalt return". So… what body are they refering to as the resurrected body? Certainly NOT the physical body we once knew… that is now dust…Jesus had a resurreced body that did & yet didn’t resemble His earthly body. (hence not being recognized by closest friends until He either spoke or revealed Himself in some recognizable way. His resurrected body could pass through walls…This sounds spiritual to me… Scientifically … we know only 1% of all that is… I think we are all talking about something in the 99% of unknowing…

 

[paul_c]

But why must you do this?
Reincarnation is part of at least two main world religions…hinduism and buddhism, is it not? Can you not allow your friend to have her beliefs? Does she try to debunk beliefs in Catholicism to you?
And how can it be proved true or false anyway? It can’t.

Our jobs as Catholics is to lead people to the truth. Allowing someone to continue in error when we can correct that is not a work of mercy.

The Catholic Church teaches that re-incarnation is false doctrine. If you believe in the credibility of the Church in teaching the Truth about faith and morals, then you will believe this as well because it comes from God. So the proof rests with the credibility of the Church.

 

[paul_c]

I know the Church teaches this… but… we ALL know that the body decays into dust… and that the Church acknowleges this with " remember man thou art but dust and unto dust thou shalt return". So… what body are they refering to as the resurrected body? Certainly NOT the physical body we once knew… that is now dust…Jesus had a resurreced body that did & yet didn’t resemble His earthly body. (hence not being recognized by closest friends until He either spoke or revealed Himself in some recognizable way. His resurrected body could pass through walls…This sounds spiritual to me… Scientifically … we know only 1% of all that is… I think we are all talking about something in the 99% of unknowing…

The church acknowledged that the resurrected body will not be the same body - it will be an incorruptible one as discussed in 1 Corinthians 15, But it WILL be a body and it WILL be unique to us. This is why the church states in the creed: I believe in th resurrection of the body.

 

[Birdpreacher]

You cant argue against reincarnation

 

[paul_c]

But just because you believe certain things are in error, does not mean they ARE in error. The catholic church may believe one thing…but this person is not a member of the Catholic church! So they are not “bound” to believe the same thing you believe.

Here in America, we call it “freedom of religion”.

Here’s the deal. Everyone has the freedom to believe what they choose to believe. Our obligation ends with telling them in the most charitable way possible, what the Catholic Church teaches and why it teaches it. At that point, the hearer must decide how to act. They can either accept Catholic teaching or reject it at their option. But at least by explaining the Catholic view, we give them that option.

 

[paul_c]

You cant argue against reincarnation

People can argue against ANYTHING. The church clearly teaches that there is NO reincarnation. If the Church is credible on teaching Faith and Morals, there is no reason to believe in reincarnation.

 

[Birdpreacher]

lol yes but then we get reduced to a “my holy books are better then your holy books” As a matter of critical thinking, neither reincarnation nor the Christian concept of the soul can be explained in a rational objective manner…this is probably the way GOd wanted it.

 

[paul_c]

lol yes but then we get reduced to a “my holy books are better then your holy books” As a matter of critical thinking, neither reincarnation nor the Christian concept of the soul can be explained in a rational objective manner…this is probably the way GOd wanted it.

As an aside to the main point, In the Catholic Church, its not really about Holy Books. The bible gets its credibility from the Church, not the other way around.

As for the point of reincarnation versus the Christian view of the soul, when Jesus was resurrected, he didn’t come back as another person, nor did he come back as a spirit. He had a resurrected body that still bore the wounds of his crucifixion that could be probed by St. Thomas. And he still ate. Granted his appearance was apparently modified because he was not immediately recognizable by the Apostles and his associates. Now all this depends on the credibility of the Church, first as witnesses to the actual pascal events and second, because of all that has transpired over the last 2000 years, including Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima. If you believe the Church on the divinity of Jesus, then there should be no way that reincarnation would make sense because its in conflict with the Christian understanding of the soul and salvation.