What about all the others?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lasting_faith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your soul (your inner being) does guide you through out your life, although you may not be aware of it. This soul knows all your previous lives. You are not just the neurons in your brain.

Also your initial stage of development in this life (spiritual mainly, but also emotional) depends on what it was at the end of your last life. So you have not lost the experience and lessons learnt from previous lives. The memory of previous lives (incidents, relationships) would actually be a burden if we continued to have it in this life.
With all due respect, openmind, this appears to be an inutile paradigm. What good is our soul guiding us to make choices, based on our prior lives, if we are not aware of our memories of past lives and conscious of that?

It would appear that the Hindu paradigm is more of a bunch of neurons guiding us, where “neurons” is simply the soul’s influence on our choices apart from our conscious memories.

What I mean is, your objection to “just neurons in the brain” seems to be, in the end, exactly what your soul is doing in guiding our decisions–having no influence on our conscious free will.

So why is your paradigm better than just neurons firing off, making us act?
 
Just curious, openmind, if you were familiar with the Christian model of God being our Beloved, offering us Himself as Bridgregroom?
I certainly see God as our Beloved, but never thought of him as Bridegroom. But let us not go there - it seems off-topic
 
I certainly see God as our Beloved, but never thought of him as Bridegroom. But let us not go there - it seems off-topic
Fair enough. But we are agreed, then, that your analogy of a celebrity being offended at not being recognized is not accurate. It would be more like a Bridegroom being saddened at being rejected by His beloved.
 
With all due respect, openmind, this appears to be an inutile paradigm. What good is our soul guiding us to make choices, based on our prior lives, if we are not aware of our memories of past lives and conscious of that?

It would appear that the Hindu paradigm is more of a bunch of neurons guiding us, where “neurons” is simply the soul’s influence on our choices apart from our conscious memories.

What I mean is, your objection to “just neurons in the brain” seems to be, in the end, exactly what your soul is doing in guiding our decisions–having no influence on our conscious free will.

So why is your paradigm better than just neurons firing off, making us act?
I had to look up inutile in the dictionary. I am not objecting to any way of looking at it. The point is that the experiences of previous lives is not lost. We progress further towards perfection in each subsequent life.

The idea that you can just repent all your sins, spend some time in purgatory and then be as good as any saint to enter eternal heaven is just not valid. Purgatory just purges you of your desires and fears (lust, greed, hate etc), it does not make you as good as a saint.

Only many, many lifetimes of progressive improvement will eventually make you fit enough to enter eternal heaven.
 
Fair enough. But we are agreed, then, that your analogy of a celebrity being offended at not being recognized is not accurate. It would be more like a Bridegroom being saddened at being rejected by His beloved.
I am not sure God can be saddened - the fact is that he does not need us or our worship. He is complete in Himself.

But what I real meant to say is that he would never condemn you for rejecting him. He is only interested in what kind of person you have become at the end of your life. The qualities I mentioned before are the ones he judges by (not by your beliefs): how spiritual, how selfless, how altruistic, how loving (to other living beings), how compassionate you are.

He would be pleased with you if you do love him but not because he needs or wants the love, but because that indicates you are a loving person. I think he would be just as pleased if you loved you fellow human beings as much.
 
I had to look up inutile in the dictionary. I am not objecting to any way of looking at it. The point is that the experiences of previous lives is not lost. We progress further towards perfection in each subsequent life.
It is indeed lost, openmind, if one cannot consciously access these memories.
The idea that you can just repent all your sins, spend some time in purgatory and then be as good as any saint to enter eternal heaven is just not valid.** Purgatory just purges you of your desires and fears (lust, greed, hate etc),** it does not make you as good as a saint
Bolded section is correct–it purges us of our attachments to disordered desires.

And what makes us as good as a saint is sanctifying grace. 👍
Only many, many lifetimes of progressive improvement will eventually make you fit enough to enter eternal heaven.
If you can’t access your memories of lessons learned, then it appears that when you are eventually fit it is through* chance*, but** not through learned experiences.
 
I expect I am going to be very unpopular here in a second.

So what are the “conditions” for salvation?
  1. One must die with no Mortal sin on their soul
  2. Must have been baptised validly (most Trinitarian formula) but also baptism by blood (martyrdom) or Desire both explicit and implicit.
  3. Must be subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff
So though we cannot judge in any individual circumstance as we are open to the mercy of God and that He may grant special graces that allow a deathbed conversion that may be known to no one in this life. We must lament the fact that most likely the vast majority of those not in some form of visible communion will be damned.

So what are the basis for the 3 conditions I highlighted
  1. Lets first look at what the council of Trent says on Mortal Sin (I am sure you can find the equivalent verses in the more recent catechisms.)
"CHAPTER XV
BY EVERY MORTAL SIN GRACE IS LOST, BUT NOT FAITH

Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent,[91] it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners,[92] and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ."
Source:ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
  1. As is recorded in the Gospel of John Chapter 3 Verse 5 “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This makes some form of Baptism a necessity.
    Source: drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm
  2. As Catholics we hold to the ability of a Pope to make infallible statements His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII made such a statement on November 18th, 1302 when in his Bull “Unam Sanctam” he wrote "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
    Source: newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm
 
I am not sure God can be saddened - the fact is that he does not need us or our worship. He is complete in Himself.
Catholic both/and is correct here. 🙂
But what I real meant to say is that he would never condemn you for rejecting him. He is only interested in what kind of person you have become at the end of your life. The qualities I mentioned before are the ones he judges by (not by your beliefs): how spiritual, how selfless, how altruistic, how loving (to other living beings), how compassionate you are.
Not exactly.

God does not condemn us, true, but what hell is is God’s love shining acutely upon us. But some turn away from this love, finding it odious rather than attractive. If they would only turn and face the Light, they would be saved. But they refuse to. Forever.

That is the Christian concept of hell.
He would be pleased with you if you do love him but not because he needs or wants the love, but because that indicates you are a loving person.
Very Catholic, this! 👍
 
As Catholics we hold to the ability of a Pope to make infallible statements His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII made such a statement on November 18th, 1302 when in his Bull “Unam Sanctam” he wrote "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "
Source: newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm
It is of utter import that we note that there were no Protestants at the time of this Bull’s proclamation.

As such, all were Catholic. In that, anyone who declared that he rejected the Roman Pontiff would have been guilty of heresy.

Today, not so much.
 
I am sure that there were others who refused to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in the same manner as Protestants. Depending on your view you can include at least part of the eastern church of that time as not being subject.

I would argue that as it is an infallible statement then it remains in force and applies to protestants as well as any other person Christian or not, as it says “every human creature” This definitely closes the matter as to salvation of non-Christians who have no claim at all of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Of course we exclude invincible ignorance)
 
I am sure that there were others who refused to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in the same manner as Protestants.
Indeed. But if they were Christians, they were baptized Catholics.
I would argue that as it is an infallible statement then it remains in force and applies to protestants as well as any other person Christian or not, as it says “every human creature” This definitely closes the matter as to salvation of non-Christians who have no claim at all of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Of course we exclude invincible ignorance)
Certainly. It just needs to be understood in the correct CONTEXT.

Christendom, at the time of this Bull, was a different animal than what it is today.

As such, we need to read* Unam Sanctum *through the lens of the time in which it was promulgated.
 
It is indeed lost, openmind, if one cannot consciously access these memories.

If you can’t access your memories of lessons learned, then it appears that when you are eventually fit it is through* chance*, but** not through learned experiences.
Hi there PR Merger,

The following is not an argument for the existence of reincarnation – I’m not attempting to offer it as proof, nor is my goal to persuade you it exists – but this is my understanding of how many in the so-called New Age movement understand reincarnation, as respects not remembering past lives:

----forgetting actually serves a purpose, which is being able to focus completely on the life at hand – a particular station or frequency, if you will – without distractions or interference from “other channels.” If there were, fundamentally, a great deal of conscious bleed through, many individuals would be perpetually dwelling on the past, in a way that impeded their progress in the current life. My mother? Someone could say, “that’s not really my mother; my mother was born in 16th century China, and I will never forget her!” Or, “my husband? I lost my husband in 1851, and I don’t want another.”

The handiest analogy I can come up with is that of watching a movie; it would be distracting, to say the least, if two movies were being played simultaneously, superimposed.

–remembering; it’s the lessons – in the abstract – and the general insights that you’ve acquired, that stay with you. This is not determinism but rather a sense of “as you reap, you will sow.” Thus, perhaps – in your past life – you were a person born into great wealth, and you never cared about those who were less fortunate than you. You took it for granted. Then you had a reversal of fortune, and ended up losing everything, and winding up penniless. Then, on top of that, you became very ill, and depended on the charity of others in order to survive. You may have experienced some cruel hurts, where you “saw your former self, as it were” (people who were rich), look upon you with contempt and bemusement. You wept bitter tears and could not understand how others could be so callous. It squashed all of your pride and presumptuousness, and gave you the lesson of humility and compassion (which you freely consented to learn; it was a golden opportunity to learn it, and you did not resist the opportunity). Now, in a subsequent life, you have no conscious recollection of any of this. You don’t even believe in reincarnation. Yet, when you were a child and someone told you, “don’t look down on those who are poor and unfortunate; there, but for the grace of God, is all of us” it resonated with you. It stirred something in you, emotionally. It “clicked”, whereas another young person could have listened to words like that and they could have gone in one ear and out the other, or been greeted with a smirk. But you’ve learned that lesson, through hard experience, even though you don’t remember the details. All you know is that it hits home, and you agree that’s it’s true. You *understand *what they’re saying; you get it. In fact, it puzzles you, even hurts you, to think that there are others around you who don’t seem to get it; you don’t understand why it is not self-evident to them.
 
Hi there PR Merger,

The following is not an argument for the existence of reincarnation – I’m not attempting to offer it as proof, nor is my goal to persuade you it exists – but this is my understanding of how many in the so-called New Age movement understand reincarnation, as respects not remembering past lives:
I understand what you are trying to do–just provide apologia for reincarnation… 👍
----forgetting actually serves a purpose, which is being able to focus completely on the life at hand – a particular station or frequency, if you will – without distractions or interference from “other channels.” If there were, fundamentally, a great deal of conscious bleed through, many individuals would be perpetually dwelling on the past, in a way that impeded their progress in the current life. My mother? Someone could say, “that’s not really my mother; my mother was born in 16th century China, and I will never forget her!” Or, “my husband? I lost my husband in 1851, and I don’t want another.”
Makes sense.
–remembering; it’s the lessons – in the abstract – and the general insights that you’ve acquired, that stay with you. This is not determinism but rather a sense of “as you reap, you will sow.” Thus, perhaps – in your past life – you were a person born into great wealth, and you never cared about those who were less fortunate than you. You took it for granted. Then you had a reversal of fortune, and ended up losing everything, and winding up penniless. Then, on top of that, you became very ill, and depended on the charity of others in order to survive. You may have experienced some cruel hurts, where you “saw your former self, as it were” (people who were rich), look upon you with contempt and bemusement. You wept bitter tears and could not understand how others could be so callous. It squashed all of your pride and presumptuousness, and gave you the lesson of humility and compassion (which you freely consented to learn; it was a golden opportunity to learn it, and you did not resist the opportunity). Now, in a subsequent life, you have no conscious recollection of any of this. You don’t even believe in reincarnation. Yet, when you were a child and someone told you, “don’t look down on those who are poor and unfortunate; there, but for the grace of God, is all of us” it resonated with you. It stirred something in you, emotionally. It “clicked”, whereas another young person could have listened to words like that and they could have gone in one ear and out the other, or been greeted with a smirk. But you’ve learned that lesson, through hard experience, even though you don’t remember the details. All you know is that it hits home, and you agree that’s it’s true. You *understand *what they’re saying; you get it. In fact, it puzzles you, even hurts you, to think that there are others around you who don’t seem to get it; you don’t understand why it is not self-evident to them.
This doesn’t make sense, apart from the Christian paradigm. It simply sounds like you are offering a synopsis of St. Paul’s profession of the natural law. We know what’s right and wrong at our essence, but sometimes sin gets in the way and gives us blinders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top