[split] excubitor vs deconversion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: [split] excubitor vs deconversion
(01-10-2013 04:22 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Please provide evidence that the church formerly taught the faithful not to be cremated so as to honour the church doctrine that we need to take care of our body while we are still living. What rubbish. Where do you get this stuff?

(08-10-2013 02:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I'm not sure what your point is. I don't disagree with anything that is in the linked article.
The linked article is the evidence you requested. If you don't disagree with it, then why did you ask for evidence? Drinking Beverage

(08-10-2013 02:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Nor has the church changed. It is a response to changing norms of society where culturally cremation is no longer associated with the disbelieving pagans who deny the resurrection. Today cremation is done for pragmatic reasons based on cost and lack of space in cemeteries.
The reason you stated for the change is basically correct, but it leaves out one important point that the article did not. The reason the Catholic church made a stand against cremation is not because disbelievers did it in opposition to the claimed resurrection (although it is true that the did that), but because cremation in that manner disrespected the body - which is the temple of the Holy Spirit according to Catholicism.

I didn't bring up the point to say that the church changed it's position. I brought it up in the context of respecting the body. We were discussing your statement that the body becomes dust after death and I was asking how that makes sense in light of the church's teaching that we are to take care of our body, our temple. What's the point of taking care of your body when it will eventually become dust anyway? Also, how does the church's approval of cremation for any reason fit with taking care of your body? The Catholic church contradicts itself all over the place. Dodgy

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: [split] excubitor vs deconversion
De-conversion is just a silly word we use to refer to those who were religiously involved before they became atheists. How you see it as a step down is silly, we were all born as atheists. Honestly, have you ever had any thoughts of god when you were an infant? That thought was put in their by your parents or community while you were growing up. I know you want to save our souls or believe that satan mislead us but this just isn't the case. We don't believe in satan either, hell even Satanists don't believe in satan. Good for theatrics though. Please don't give that bullshit about that satan made us disbelieve in god.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: [split] excubitor vs deconversion
(08-10-2013 02:26 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Not often I find someone coming back and admitting error. Shows that you are a person of character.
Interesting. Too bad you can't seem to do the same. Drinking Beverage

(08-10-2013 02:26 AM)excubitor Wrote:  What kind of resurrection of the body were you imagining that was not a "miracle"?
True, it would be a miracle either way. But conceptually, putting life back into a body that is already whole is quite a different thing than having to completely restore the body itself from dust first. That was the real point I was making. Silly me for forgetting God can do anything (like making a rock too heavy for him to lift and yet him being able to lift it anyway... mmm hmmm...)

(08-10-2013 02:26 AM)excubitor Wrote:  You are obviously extremely confused. Where did I say that the body was not eternal. I never said any such thing. I utterly deny that the body is eternal.
I'm the one that's confused...? Laugh out load
Please read what you wrote. Your subsequent 3 sentences contain an explicit contradiction. Consider

(08-10-2013 02:26 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I agree. The bodies are not eternal. The whole point of all my posts was to insist that the body is mortal, contrary to the soul which IS eternal. I was directly stating that the body is NOT eternal and is most certainly mortal.

Please where I ever claimed that the body is eternal. I said no such thing, implied no such thing and never even thought any such thing.
I agree that is what you originally said. You said bodies are not eternal. They are mortal. After that, I pointed out how this contracts the Catholic teaching that the bodies and souls will be reunited and BOTH will live for eternity. At that point, you asked where you said anything different than that. I pointed it out and this whole discussion ensued. I'm glad to see you are finally admitting that my first interpretation of what you said was correct. Thumbsup

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: