Yeah, but your soul is not immaterial. Your soul is created with the body and is fused with the body. If it is created, like all created things, it is a part of creation. It is therefore material, not immaterial.
It’s still immaterial in a similar way to angels, who are created intelligent beings, but who have no material bodies.
I did not see a lot of tolerance and respect for Pandara’s faith in Liberal catholicism and the Gnostic sects of Christianity.
I respect whatever she believes, but I have to object if she claims reincarnation can be part of Christianity, when the two are mutually exclusive.
And Gnostics aren’t Christians.
That’s not “intolerance” to say that. They are free to believe whatever they want to believe, but it’s not at all compatible with Christianity.
Logic is not about opinion. Something is either logical or it is not.
Is this a teaching of Hinduism? Is a Hindu free to reject this idea?
The most compelling evidence in Christian teachings of reincarnation is in the belief of the second coming of Christ, no matter how we christians might dress this up us doctrine or not and argue against it, it inherently suggest reincarnation of some sort.
Furthermore, the discovery of early Gnostic scriptures in Egypt in 1945 and the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 contain compelling and unchanged evidence that the early Gnostic Christians whose works these were did teach reincarnation, it is an undeniable fact and as such as a Liberal Catholic I belief in reincarnation and I feel much honored to be part of a church where I am free to exercise this belief and where it is also supported openly.
I would like to conclude with this thought from Origen: “[I]The soul has neither beginning nor end. They come into this world strenghtened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.”[/I]
PS: Please note that I am male. 
Follow your bliss x
I really struggle to find context for your statement. Can you please explain a bit more? Perhaps you can indicate to whom this was directed or if a general statement why.
[QUOTE=thomas;40273]It’s still immaterial in a similar way to angels, who are created intelligent beings, but who have no material bodies.[/QUOTE]
This yet another inconsistency in your belief. You believe that angels are immaterial like souls, yet these angels were not created by conception with a body. Why should it be that both are of the same substance, yet one was created by conception with a body and another wasn’t?
If you want to remain logical you need to accept the soul is immaterial and pre-exists prior to the body. As soon as you say it comes into being with the body, you can no longer maintain it is immaterial. It should perish as soon as the body perishes.
Is this a teaching of Hinduism? Is a Hindu free to reject this idea?
One philosopher once commented that the only thing Hindus seem to have faith in is reason. We believe in scientific thinking. We believe it reveals the nature of reality. However, we are not purely intellectual either, because we also look at empirical facts to verify our reasoning. It is said in our scriptures knowledge only becomes real knowledge when one has direct experience of it, prior to that it is just words, but those words indicate real truths.
There is a right way of thinking and a wrong way of thinking. Your way of thinking produces inconsistencies and this is why it is right to reject your beliefs. My way of thinking does not produce any inconsistencies, every conclusion can be demonstrated by reason and by empirical evidence.
respect whatever she believes, but I have to object if she claims reincarnation can be part of Christianity, when the two are mutually exclusive.
And Gnostics aren’t Christians.
That’s not “intolerance” to say that. They are free to believe whatever they want to believe, but it’s not at all compatible with Christianity.
Yep, it is intolerant and disrespectful. You have decided to exclude them from Christianity, even though they themselves see themselves as Christians. You are defining Christianity by the dogma of your sect(Roman catholicism) and condemning them as heretics. That is intolerant and disrespectful.
If you were tolerant and respectful you would accept that there are sects of Christians who do in fact believe in reincarnation and Gnositicism, and these sects are just as old yours, if not older. You may not agree with them, but it does not change the fact that this sect exists and has existed for thousands of years.
You have no right to tell Pandara he is not christian. You can say Pandara is not a Roman catholic, and Pandara will have no problem in admiting that. But to tell Pandra he is not Christian is like a Hindu vishnu worshipper telling a Shiva worshipper he is not Hindu. That does not happen in our religion because we respect diversity. Clearly you do not.
If a group of people worship dogs and say one of the dogs is Jesus, and if they call themselves Christians, I would be intolerant to say they are not?
The Catholic Church is not a “sect” but the original Church established by Jesus, founded on Peter. Those who have broken away from the Church and those who embrace certain core beliefs are still considered Christians from a Catholic perspective.
It appears from what I have seen of what Liberal Catholics believe that they could be considered to be Christians, but those who of them who believe in reincarnation have accepted a very serious error which is contrary to Christianity.
Mormons are not Chrisitans because they do not believe in the Divinity of Christ.
That is a fact and not “intolerance.” Chrisitianity is more than a word.
Those who embrace errors and who call themselves Christians, but who are not truly Christians, are often good sincere people, and I don’t criticize their sincerity or good intentions.
I respect diversity and all religions, but not all religions and beliefs are Christian, and putting the word “Christian” on them does not make them so.
[QUOTE=Pandara;40309]The most compelling evidence in Christian teachings of reincarnation is in the belief of the second coming of Christ, no matter how we christians might dress this up us doctrine or not and argue against it, it inherently suggest reincarnation of some sort.
Furthermore, the discovery of early Gnostic scriptures in Egypt in 1945 and the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 contain compelling and unchanged evidence that the early Gnostic Christians whose works these were did teach reincarnation, it is an undeniable fact and as such as a Liberal Catholic I belief in reincarnation and I feel much honored to be part of a church where I am free to exercise this belief and where it is also supported openly.
I would like to conclude with this thought from Origen: “[I]The soul has neither beginning nor end. They come into this world strenghtened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.”[/I]
PS: Please note that I am male. :)[/QUOTE]
My apologies, sir.
I do not see how the second coming of Christ in any way supports reincarnation.
Christ had one incarnation, and was born of the Virgin Mary. He lived among men, healed the sick, raised some from the dead, made a blind man see, walked on water, multiplied loaves and fish, etc. etc. He eventually was crucified, died, and then by his own power, came back to life. He had further interaction with the apostles and then rose to Heaven.
He will come back again, but the same Christ in the same body.
If you’re interested in what the early Church Fathers speculated about reincarnation, please see the article linked below:
[QUOTE=thomas;40325]If a group of people worship dogs and say one of the dogs is Jesus, and if they call themselves Christians, I would be intolerant to say they are not?
The Catholic Church is not a “sect” but the original Church established by Jesus, founded on Peter. Those who have broken away from the Church and those who embrace certain core beliefs are still considered Christians from a Catholic perspective.[/quote]
There is no original Church set up by Jesus 
Anyway I think your last post has done a lot to dispell the myth that you are tolerant and respectful of other religions and sects
[QUOTE=Pandara;40314]I really struggle to find context for your statement. Can you please explain a bit more? Perhaps you can indicate to whom this was directed or if a general statement why. :)[/QUOTE]
Yes sorry Pandara it was too vague…
I was kind of feeling a bit sorry for everyone defending their corner. Follow your bliss is…what you believe in, follow it, if it makes you happy.
But carry on ill try not to interfere.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;40327]There is no original Church set up by Jesus
Anyway I think your last post has done a lot to dispell the myth that you are tolerant and respectful of other religions and sects ;)[/QUOTE]
I tolerate them all.
Hinduism is Hinduism. Judiasm is Judiasm. Islam is Islam. Mormonism is Mormonism. Gnosticism is Gnosticsm. And Christianity is Christianity.
I tolerate them, but that doesn’t mean I have to say one religion is another religion.
There are a billion Catholics in the world, and Catholicism has been here for 2,000 years, always believing that Jesus founded the Church on the Apostles, with Peter being the first pope.
Why you have an issue with Catholicism in particular is interesting. You seem to be a Protestant Hindu.
[QUOTE=thomas;40352]I tolerate them all.
Hinduism is Hinduism. Judiasm is Judiasm. Islam is Islam. Mormonism is Mormonism. Gnosticism is Gnosticsm. And Christianity is Christianity.
I tolerate them, but that doesn’t mean I have to say one religion is another religion.
There are a billion Catholics in the world, and Catholicism has been here for 2,000 years, always believing that Jesus founded the Church on the Apostles, with Peter being the first pope.
Why you have an issue with Catholicism in particular is interesting. You seem to be a Protestant Hindu quote
ooooow Well oooooow now then Protestant Hindu Surya
Wheres Yogiadam:-o
[QUOTE=kareng;40374]
Wheres Yogiadam:-o[/QUOTE]
lol, here I am. I don’t know what to say. This is an argument about who’s imaginary friend is the best. It’s an argument between someone who believes in Big Foot, vs someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster. I have nothing to add
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;40381]lol, here I am. I don’t know what to say. This is an argument about who’s imaginary friend is the best. It’s an argument between someone who believes in Big Foot, vs someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster. I have nothing to add :)[/QUOTE]
I kind of with you there. In a sense we are all reincarnated in that our molecules are re-used and re-absorbed. As for consiousness, it is an illusion created in the workings of the brain. When the brain dies, so does the illusion of consiousness.
a b s o l u t e l y !
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;40381]lol, here I am. I don’t know what to say. This is an argument about who’s imaginary friend is the best. It’s an argument between someone who believes in Big Foot, vs someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster. I have nothing to add :)[/QUOTE]
hahahahah but protestant Hindu Surya is a killer 
over to Surya
[QUOTE=kareng;40384]hahahahah but protestant Hindu Surya is a killer over to Surya[/QUOTE]
Ahhhh she’s a journo!!! lol
Flexpenguin says …When the brain dies, so does the illusion of consciousness
Cant agree with this flex…I believe its in full working order in the died, then death process after.
Got to go to bed now…x will look for any reply tomos goodnight to you all