Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?

[Ahimsa]

The Catholic understanding is the Christian understanding.

If you’re Catholic, yes; but not if you’re Methodist, or Baptist, or UCC, or Pentecostal. I make no claims regarding traditional Catholic understanding of the resurrection.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re talking about the traditional Catholic understanding of the resurrection, then that’s one thing. But the “Christian” understanding of the resurrection is very diverse.

Not sure what your point is here, Ahimsa. There are now over 40,000 Christian denominations, each claiming that their “understanding” is the correct one on thousands of different issues.

That there is chaos and confusion in the world of Christianity is, well, only a testament to sin.

If your point is that Christians have a multitude of understandings and this provides legitimacy to these understandings, you are mistaken.

In the secular world understanding of “marriage” is very diverse. In fact, there are some who consider it legitimate for a 65 yr old man to be “married” to a 12 yr old girl. Does not make it right–but they have that position, yes?

 

[benedictus2]

If you’re Catholic, yes; but not if you’re Methodist, or Baptist, or UCC, or Pentecostal.

Then explain to me how the Methodist, Baptist, and UCC and Pentecostal understanding of the resurrection differ then please reconcile those supposedly different understandings with re-incarnation.

 

[Ahimsa]

Not sure what your point is here, Ahimsa.

My point is that reincarnation and resurrection are not inherently incompatible, as seen, for instance, with the Hasidic belief in both.

Whether the traditional Catholic understanding of resurrection is thusly not incompatible with reincarnation, that’s something for traditional Catholics to discuss.

 

[benedictus2]

My point is that reincarnation and resurrection are not inherently incompatible, as seen, for instance, with the Hasidic belief in both.

I am not talking about Hasidic belief. However, I did say before that you can explain how the compatibility using Hasidic thinking.

Whether the traditional Catholic understanding of resurrection is thusly not incompatible with reincarnation, that’s something for traditional Catholics to discuss.

No, you said they are not incompatible so now the ball is in your court to show that they are indeed compatible.

Or are you shooting with blanks?

 

[Ahimsa]

Then explain to me how the Methodist, Baptist, and UCC and Pentecostal understanding of the resurrection differ then please reconcile those supposedly different understandings with re-incarnation.

One of the main ways that ideas of resurrection differ among Christians (conservative, moderate, liberal, emergent, emerging, etc.) is whether the resurrection body is (1) the same physical body one possess while alive, with the same atoms and so forth; (2) a physical body not necessarily composed of the same atoms; (3a) a body that is physical, but made of “transformed” atoms, not composed of what we think of as matter; (3b) a purely spiritual resurrected body, composed of subtle forms of matter; (4) purely a symbol of the moral and spiritual rebirth of a person during his or her lifetime; (5) a symbol of something that cannot be described in any accurate fashion whatsoever, so it’s best just to not think about it too much.

 

[benedictus2]

One of the main ways that ideas of resurrection differ among Christians (conservative, moderate, liberal, emergent, emerging, etc.) is whether the resurrection body is (1) the same physical body one possess while alive, with the same atoms and so forth; (2) a physical body not necessarily composed of the same atoms; (3) a body that is physical, but made of “transformed” atoms, not composed of what we think of as matter; (3) a purely spiritual resurrected body, composed of subtle forms of matter; (4) purely a symbol of the moral and spiritual rebirth of a person during his or her lifetime; (5) a symbol of something that cannot be described in any accurate fashion whatsoever, so it’s best just to not think about it too much.

All of these understandings state a once off coming back from the dead.

So how is that compatible with re-incarnation in the Hindu or Buddhist belief?

 

[Ahimsa]

No, you said they are not incompatible so now the ball is in your court to show that they are indeed compatible.

You seemed to be interested in showing how traditional Catholic understanding of resurrection is compatible with reincarnation, a demonstration I have no interest in.

Now, if you want to know how other Christian ideas of resurrection may be compatible with reincarnation, then I can offer a few possibilities.

 

[Ahimsa]

All of these understandings state a once off coming back from the dead.

Actually, numbers 4 or 5 don’t say anything about a “once off comign back from the dead”. These two latter interpretations of resurrection are obviously very compatible with reincarnation.

 

[benedictus2]

You seemed to be interested in showing how traditional Catholic understanding of resurrection is compatible with reincarnation, a demonstration I have no interest in.

Now, if you want to know how other Christian ideas of resurrection may be compatible with reincarnation, then I can offer a few possibilities.

Sorry you were the one who said it is.

Just as I thought you are incapable of backing up your claim.

 

[Ahimsa]

Sorry you were the one who said it is.

My claim, as stated from the beginning, was that reincarnation and resurrection were not incompatible. No more, no less.

 

[GEddie]

If you’re Catholic, yes; but not if you’re Methodist, or Baptist, or UCC, or Pentecostal. I make no claims regarding traditional Catholic understanding of the resurrection.

Actually, despite the plethora of Christian faith bodies with their doctrinal differences, and the general uncertainty (going back to the time of Saint Paul) about the nature of our pneumatikon soma, one thing that has historically been agreed upon by everybody is the resurrection: the dead human being reinstated as a live body.

You cannot, in fact, be a Christian without it, because the anchor point of Christianity is our LORD resuming bodily life after having undergone death.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, numbers 4 or 5 don’t say anything about a “once off comign back from the dead”. These two latter interpretations of resurrection are obviously very compatible with reincarnation.

Actually you are right. But that meaning of resurrection is not the resurrection we speak about in relation to an after life so they can be discounted as far as this discussion is concerned.

Strictly speaking, when Christians speak of resurrection, we mean bodily resurrection and that goes for Methodists, Baptists and Pentecostals.

 

[benedictus2]

My claim, as stated from the beginning, was that reincarnation and resurrection were not incompatible. No more, no less.

And so many posts later, you still have been unable to show that it is so.

 

[GEddie]

What, or who, is this original “you”?

Your human mind. Not some wispy “reincarnational spirit.”

The mind is the person, but it requires a body to live in, and that is why we also have a resurrection.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ahimsa]

Actually, despite the plethora of Christian faith bodies with their doctrinal differences, and the general uncertainty (going back to the time of Saint Paul) about the nature of our pneumatikon soma, one thing that has historically been agreed upon by everybody is the resurrection: the dead human being reinstated as a live body.

I’m not arguing merely historically; I’m describing how diverse Christians, especially of today, interpret the resurrection.

 

[Ahimsa]

Actually you are right. But that meaning of resurrection is not the resurrection we speak about in relation to an after life so they can be discounted as far as this discussion is concerned.

The “we” that you refer to would describe some Christians, but not all.

 

[GEddie]

One of the main ways that ideas of resurrection differ among Christians (conservative, moderate, liberal, emergent, emerging, etc.) is whether the resurrection body is (1) the same physical body one possess while alive, with the same atoms and so forth; (2) a physical body not necessarily composed of the same atoms; (3a) a body that is physical, but made of “transformed” atoms, not composed of what we think of as matter; (3b) a purely spiritual resurrected body, composed of subtle forms of matter;

All of these supposedly divergent views amount to the same thing: the reinstatement of a human being, who has suffered death, as a LIVING HUMAN BODY.

Since most dead bodies do not remain stable in time, there really is no difference among the outcomes. It’s a breathing body in the end, that’s the point.

(4) purely a symbol of the moral and spiritual rebirth of a person during his or her lifetime; (5) a symbol of something that cannot be described in any accurate fashion whatsoever, so it’s best just to not think about it too much.

Sure, you can find a handful of Christians who believe something like that. You can find someone to believe anything. The fact remains that anybody with authority in Christianity will say that that is NOT resurrection. Resurrection is physical. It’s as solid as your body. And all of the schisms and Reformations since the New Testament have not explained it away.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ahimsa]

And so many posts later, you still have been unable to show that it is so.

Well, interpretations number 4 and 5 are obviously compatible with reincarnation.

Interpretation number 3 could be seen as compatible as well: if the resurrection involves a spiritual body, then that spiritual body would still be “resurrected” even if it were to become associated with another physical body.

 

[benedictus2]

The “we” that you refer to would describe some Christians, but not all.

If you are hoping that that will extricate you out of the bind that you’ve put yourself into - it doesn’t.

Christian teaching is based on Christ’s resurrection. He died once, He rose once. That is is Christian teaching.

So called Christians who don’t believe that are not Christians. It is that simple. Just because they claim to be Christian don’t make it so.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for your explanation.