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

[benedictus2]

Question: In considering what you just explained, could you offer an opinion on what these passages meant:

Luke 24:15-16

As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

John 20:15

“Woman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

John 21:4

Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

Just curious, and I do *not *have an opinion or explanation of my own.

Your friend
Sufjon

The Jews then did not believe in the resurrection as experienced by Jesus. They had an inkling but they really had no idea that one can truly and literally come back from the dead.

If you continue reading these passages, you will realize that after a while they do recognize Jesus. Mary of Magdala does and so do the disciples on the way to Emmaus - at the breaking of the bread.

I would suggest that you don’t fall into the mistake of chopping up the words of God. Read the rest of the text.

The better question is, why is it that they did not recognize Jesus at first and what changed such that they were able to finally recognize Him.

You should read the entire passage regarding the Road to Emmaus. It is a most beautiful story.

 

[benedictus2]

The point is… I think we all just believe what we want…

Blessed are those who actually believe the truth in spite of what they want to believe. If one truly seeks the truth instead of insisting on believing what one wants to, one will indeed find the truth.
I believe things that make sense to me personally. They may not make much rational sense - but that’s where Intuition comes in. With the Intuition there is a lot more “inner sense” that begins unfolding, sort of like a flower.
And I suppose whatever makes sense to you must be the truth regardless of whether it makes sense to others or not.

This is not to say all dogma is bad. As Chesterton said we are the only types of beings we know of that make Dogmas. But, take it with a grain of salt, is my view. Ultimately, we believe what it is we want to believe.** It’s all about YOU. **

And that is the real tragedy - the fact that so many people have swalloed this lie of the evil one hook, line and sinker. The height of narcissism.

Reality check. It is not all about you.

Fr Barron puts it beautifully this way:

Your life is not about you.
It is your life but it is not about you. It is about the Lord God and the Lord God’s desire for you.

 

[Ahimsa]

I was thinking this over as I dozed off to sleep so i thought I would give a second reply to this.

First let us look at the term resurrection.

Resurrection means a coming back to life of the biologically dead.

Points 1 to 3a can thus be viewed as resurrection events.

Point 3B does not make sense. A spiritual body? Whatever does that mean? Of course all beings human beings can be said to be bodies and souls so that falls in to another category does not make sense.The spiritual body is the type of body one has when one exists in the spiritual realm. For instance, the body that one has when one is in purgatory, or in heaven, are spiritual bodies. The spiritual body generally has a form (arms, legs, etc.), but a form made of spirit, rather than matter.

In traditional Christian terms, the spiritual body is the body that you have between (1) physical death of the body and (2) the physical resurrection of the body.

Points 4 and 5 cannot be called resurrection since there is no dead body that has come to life to speak of.

This is where many Christians would differ, and suggest that “resurrection”, though depicted as being “physical” in some parts (but not all parts) of the NT, is most basically not about a physical resurrection, but a moral, or ethical, resurrection.

But even 1 to 3a could be seen as consistent with reincarnation. For instance, it could be the case that a person reincarnates for several lifetimes, and then, in one lifetime, the person decides to accept Jesus as his personal savior. Once he chooses Jesus, then that person, after he dies, no longer has to reincarnate, but can go to purgatory, then heaven, and then, after the Last Judgement, the person’s body can be physically resurrected.

Now, you might say, “OK, but which of the person’s bodies will be resurrected, since he has reincarnated as many different bodies?”

To which I would say, “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). One possibility is that the resurrected body is a synthesis of all one’s reincarnated bodies.

 

[Ahimsa]

You are imposing a totally Hindu/Buddhist concept on a Christian theology. Won’t do.

Why not? Greek Neo-Platonic ideas were adopted by Christianity, so why not Hindu or Buddhist ideas?

 

[Ahimsa]

You are a buddhist, you obviously know that when you speak of reincarnation, it is dying coming back to life as a different person altogether and dying and coming back ad infinitum.Actually, you’re not a totally different person; and you need not come back “ad infinitum” – reincarnation is meant to be stopped. That’s the whole purpose of enlightenment, to stop the process of reincarnation.

 

[Ahimsa]

Let me put it this way- suppose a lot of Hindus suddenly believes in the truth of Christianity and starts adjusting Hindu teaching to suit their Christian belief, bending and contorting Hindu teaching here and there.

Can you say that they are Hindu and as such can legitimately speak of what is truly Hindu?If they still call themselves Hindu, then I would see them as a particular Hindu sect.

 

[Ahimsa]

You realize of course that this is a yogi trying to interpret Jesus divorced from Jesus’s own Jewish background.

The yogi does not get Jesus at all.

There’s nothing in the Jewish background that would make impossible the idea of God becoming man. Otherwise, Christianity would have been impossible.

 

[benedictus2]

This is where many Christians would differ, and suggest that “resurrection”, though depicted as being “physical” in some parts (but not all parts) of the NT, is most basically not about a physical resurrection, but a moral, or ethical, resurrection.

Which Christians and which parts of the Bible say that the resurrection is not the resurrection of the physical body?

But even 1 to 3a could be seen as consistent with reincarnation. For instance, it could be the case that a person reincarnates for several lifetimes, and then, in one lifetime, the person decides to accept Jesus as his personal savior.

Okay, here is something that you need to get. Christian teaching never ever taught that we have a lifetime here on earth other than one. Christian teaching never ever taught that we as individuals used to be dog, cat, or gnat or what ever and over several lifetimes evolved into a human being.

The idea of us having existed for all eternity before is totally alien to Christianity. You need to remember that or else you will keep falling into error.

There is no such thing as several lifetimes in Christian teaching.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, you’re not a totally different person; and you need not come back “ad infinitum” – reincarnation is meant to be stopped. That’s the whole purpose of enlightenment, to stop the process of reincarnation.

Even when they start saying that there is no such thing as reincarnation, that the Vishnu is not God?

Therefore you are saying that Hinduism is whatever one wants to make of it. Therefore there is no core teaching in Hinduism.

 

[benedictus2]

Why not? Greek Neo-Platonic ideas were adopted by Christianity, so why not Hindu or Buddhist ideas?

Becuse Hindu and Buddhist ideas are totally alien to Christian belief.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, you’re not a totally different person; and you need not come back “ad infinitum” – reincarnation is meant to be stopped. That’s the whole purpose of enlightenment, to stop the process of reincarnation.

Let me ask you this.

Where did you come from? I mean that supposedly"core you" that gets re-incarnated.

Are you a creation of God separate from Him, or part of God?

If you are part of God from the beginning, then may I ask why you need to go through all this re-incarnations towards enlightenment? Therefore God is not enlightened enough?

 

[benedictus2]

There’s nothing in the Jewish background that would make impossible the idea of God becoming man.

The text you quoted was not entirely about God becoming man. It was talking about Christ concciousness and other Hindu stuff.

You cannot apply this to Christ because Christ was not Hindu - He was Jewish.

 

[PRmerger]

The point is… I think we all just believe what we want…

I believe things that make sense to me personally. They may not make much rational sense - but that’s where Intuition comes in. With the Intuition there is a lot more “inner sense” that begins unfolding, sort of like a flower.

This is not to say all dogma is bad. As Chesterton said we are the only types of beings we know of that make Dogmas. But, take it with a grain of salt, is my view. Ultimately, we believe what it is we want to believe. It’s all about YOU.

Actually, Kismetji, we should believe what is True, not what we want.

Are you familiar with the tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?

He believes what he wants–that he has a beautiful robe and gown. The reality is he is parading through town stark naked.

Now, the fact that he is happy is immaterial. He is not grounded in truth, and thus is a fool.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s nothing in the Jewish background that would make impossible the idea of God becoming man. Otherwise, Christianity would have been impossible.

Yet is there something in Judaism that makes impossible the idea that a *man *can become God?

 

[Erethorn]

The Church however does not teach that those outside the Church do not receive the graces that flow from the Life, Death and Ressurection of Christ.

Excuse me, but it teaches exactly that. To those outside the Church, grace and works have no salvific power:

The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches …
…It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. - from the papal bull Cantate Domino.

Their status is left to the mercy of God.

As you can see from the above infailible teaching, you are not correct. Their status is clearly defined: the everlasting fire.

Of course, this leaves us the problem of Vatican II, and the other infailible teaching that says different.

 

[Sufjon]

I would suggest that you don’t fall into the mistake of chopping up the words of God. Read the rest of the text.

You know Benedictus, I am not chopping up any words of the bible. My point is that they didn’t recognize Jesus at first. I know they must have recognized Him at some point, but there was a point where they didn’t. This was in response to a statement wherein I was told that they recognized Him. After a number of explanations from you and others, I am still left to believe that they didn’t recognize Him at least at first.

You should read the entire passage regarding the Road to Emmaus. It is a most beautiful story.

I read it.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Excuse me, but it teaches exactly that. To those outside the Church, grace and works have no salvific power:

The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches …
…It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. - from the papal bull Cantate Domino.

As you can see from the above infailible teaching, you are not correct. Their status is clearly defined: the everlasting fire.

Of course, this leaves us the problem of Vatican II, and the other infailible teaching that says different.

That’s a Bull and not scripture.

 

[Erethorn]

That’s a Bull and not scripture.

It’s the inffalible teaching of the Council of Constance. Hence, from the catholic point of view, it is every bit as true and divinely inspired as the Scriptures.

I’m not saying I agree with what it says, mind you. In fact, my recent discovery of that text has led me to seriously question the autority of the Church, to the point of considering to remove myself from it.

 

[Ahimsa]

Which Christians and which parts of the Bible say that the resurrection is not the resurrection of the physical body?There are many moderate to liberal Christian churches who would argue that the resurrection of the body does not necessarily refer to a physical resurrection.

Okay, here is something that you need to get. Christian teaching never ever taught that we have a lifetime here on earth other than one.

There are many Christians who believe in reincarnation, and even a church or two that teach that.

 

[GEddie]

Why not? Greek Neo-Platonic ideas were adopted by Christianity, so why not Hindu or Buddhist ideas?

Because a) unlike the Greek teachings, Oriental religion was never part of the Christian tradition; and b) it makes no sense to adopt contradictions.

ICXC NIKA