Reincarnation and Eternal Life

Spirituality Religion
#21

Thomas,

I respect your view and I understand it, may I ask that you respect mine as well. To explain why I can reconcile reincarnation with my christain beliefs will take more than just this forum and I really don’t have the time to go into 20 years of experience, psychic visions, readings, books and revelations I believe to be from God about reincarnation. For me it is my TRUTH and I will account for it one day in the afterlife, I therefore have no problem to reconcile other teachings with my christian faith.

#22

Not necessarily Thomas. If you read some of the Gospels, such as the Gnostic Gospels, you do find justification for reincarnation in Christianity. It is known today that the early Christians believed in reincarnation.

#23

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;39925]Not necessarily Thomas. If you read some of the Gospels, such as the Gnostic Gospels, you do find justification for reincarnation in Christianity. It is known today that the early Christians believed in reincarnation.[/QUOTE]

The Gnositics were a heretical sect and not Christians.

Reincarnation was denounced by the early Church Fathers.

There is ZERO support for reincarnation in the New Testament.

There is overwhelming support, and is in fact an essential part of our faith, that we have one life and one body, and that our body will die, our soul will depart for Heaven or Hell, depending upon the disposition of our soul, and that at the Resurrection, we will be given new indestructable bodies.

We will be the same people we were in our earthly lives, but somehow “glorified.”

You will search in vain for anything in Catholicism or any of the Protestant Churces which demonstrate a belief in reincarnation.

A few tiny sects might believe in it and claim some association with Christianity, but they aren’t Christian.

#24

Yep, they were declared heretical by Constantine at the council of Nicea. Prior to that they were not heretical.

There is ZERO support for reincarnation in the New Testament.

This is debatable, however, depending on how you interpret it. I have seen scholars interpret reincarnation in the NT before. Moreover, the NT only includes a selection of the gospels, not all of them.

A few tiny sects might believe in it and claim some association with Christianity, but they aren’t Christian.

They would disagree.

#25

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;39936]Yep, they were declared heretical by Constantine at the council of Nicea. Prior to that they were not heretical.

This is debatable, however, depending on how you interpret it. I have seen scholars interpret reincarnation in the NT before. Moreover, the NT only includes a selection of the gospels, not all of them.

They would disagree.[/QUOTE]

I don’t have time to dig up Church history, but the Gnostics would always have been heretical. Being declared so at a certain point in time doesn’t mean they were not prior to that.

At any rate, Catholicsm, the largest “denomination” of Christians rejects reincarnation as do all the mainstream Protestant denominations.

Christianity does not teach reincarnation.

#26

I don’t have time to dig up Church history, but the Gnostics would always have been heretical. Being declared so at a certain point in time doesn’t mean they were not prior to that.

Obviously they were not always heretical, else there would be no need to declare them a heresy later on. It is understood that it was quite a common belief prior in Christian sects

Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day, while his contemporary in Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, in various of his writings, also refers to reimbodiment in one or another form.

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of Alexandria ( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen’s works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: “Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?” And in De Principiis he says that “the soul has neither beginning nor end.” St. Jerome (AD 340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few “as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged.”

Source: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

#27

I don’t have time to dredge up Church history and the works of apologits to respond to quotes from internet detractors, which are endless in their distortions and misrepresentations of Catholicism.

For now, it is sufficient to say that reincarnation is not taught by Catholicism in any shape or form or in any mainstream Protestant church.

The soul is created on or about the time of conception, departs from the body at death, and will be reunited with the body at the Resurrection.

This is our faith. We get one incarnation.

You have your own faith and are free to believe as you see fit, but you are in error about Christianity and often misrepresent it.

#28

This is not really a question of faith, it is a question of whether it is a historical fact that early Christians believed in reincarnation. According to historical records and the teachings of early Church fathers, yes they did. Therefore Christian gnostics are a legitimate sect of Christianity. They may not represent the Roman catholic stream of Chriastianity which you follow, but they represent other streams and this you will have to accept, lest you want to look like a bigot to others here saying only your branch of Christianity is Christianity.

In any case what you state on the grounds of faith is completely illogical to any rational person. You claim the say is created at conception with the body, which therefore means the soul has to be something which exists in the physical world, as it is part of created things. If it is in the body, we should be able to open the body and see the soul. Then you claim that the created soul departs at death, but if it is created with the body it should die with the body. Then you claim that on an appointed day the soul will be reunited with the body, but the atoms of the body will be long gone and recycled by nature.

The final problem with your belief is that you believe something which has been created and is finite will have eternal life in an eternal body after an appointed time. This goes against facts which show us that all created things perish, whether they be plants, animals, humans, rocks, suns, solar systems, nothing created endures. Even the universe has its cycles. I am reminded of what Krishna says, “Whatever is born, will surely perish”

This is why orthodox Christianity is an irrational religion. We Hindus got the good end of the stick when it came to giving out religion.

#29

A thing that bothers me about the bible is that a council of men, … …had a number of books to choose from, so they sat and selected which books to include and which books to leave out of the bible…how can we be sure that what these men selected are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? After all, they were just a council of men.

Can someone answer please?

#30

You’re very disrespectful of other religions and their followers SD.

I will accept that you know your own faith, and would not presume to teach you about it, unless I did a very thorough study, and I think you should do likewise. Your understanding of Christianity is shallow.

And the soul is immaterial and not “in” the body, but united to it.

#31

Hi I would like to add that its not that I am questioning the contents necessarily, just the selected for the readers?

#32

Surya This is why orthodox Christianity is an irrational religion. We Hindus got the good end of the stick when it came to giving out religion.

This is tactless Surya x

#33

Thomas, you are not exactly a shining example of religious tolerance yourself.

I do not believe something can be justified by faith. If you believe in something irrational, I am going to say it. You believe that the soul is created at conception alongside with the body, but then the body dies, but the soul lives on in an afterlife. Why? Why should the soul live on if it was created with the body? Then you say the soul comes back one day and its body is resurrected and made immortal. How? How can your body be physically resurrected when its decomposed into the ground, the atoms have been recycled and transformed into other things. How can there be an immortal body, when everything in the world decays? How does something which has a beginning in time, become timeless?

Don’t give me the faith crap. You clearly do not question your beliefs. This is why I said we Hindus got the better end of the stick when religion was being given out, because we have absolute freedom to question our religion and what it teaches, and reject it if it does not pass the test of reason.

Reincarnation vs resurrection? Which is more likely that the soul merely takes on a new body like a garment from life to life under the influence of karma until it has completed all its lessons or all dead people are magically assembled out of dust and given immortal bodies one day or skeletons rise from the grave and become people :smiley:

#34

Surya…to Thomas…You clearly do not question your beliefs. This is why I said we Hindus got the better end of the stick when religion was being given out, because we have absolute freedom to question our religion and what it teaches, and reject it if it does not pass the test of reason.

Surya to Thomas …This is why I said we Hindus got the better end of the stick when religion was being given out, because we have absolute freedom to question our religion and what it teaches, and reject it if it does not pass the test of reason.

Crucially missing …now I understand

In Buddhism, Buddha states "Do not believe what I say, question whatever it is, yourself "

#35

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;40198]Thomas, you are not exactly a shining example of religious tolerance yourself.

I do not believe something can be justified by faith. If you believe in something irrational, I am going to say it. You believe that the soul is created at conception alongside with the body, but then the body dies, but the soul lives on in an afterlife. Why? Why should the soul live on if it was created with the body? Then you say the soul comes back one day and its body is resurrected and made immortal. How? How can your body be physically resurrected when its decomposed into the ground, the atoms have been recycled and transformed into other things. How can there be an immortal body, when everything in the world decays? How does something which has a beginning in time, become timeless?

Don’t give me the faith crap. You clearly do not question your beliefs. This is why I said we Hindus got the better end of the stick when religion was being given out, because we have absolute freedom to question our religion and what it teaches, and reject it if it does not pass the test of reason.

Reincarnation vs resurrection? Which is more likely that the soul merely takes on a new body like a garment from life to life under the influence of karma until it has completed all its lessons or all dead people are magically assembled out of dust and given immortal bodies one day or skeletons rise from the grave and become people :D[/QUOTE]

I am tolerant of other religions, and respect what is good a true in all faiths. I especially respect the good intent and sincerity of other believers in all faiths, and would do my best to demonstrate that respect and not insult them.

I believe my religion is true, but that’s how it should be. I do not impose my religion, and my only reason for entering into this disagreement with you was not to debate my religion or yours, but to set the record straight–Christianity does not embrace reincarnation.

If Christianity is not logical to you, then you shouldn’t be a Chiristian. To me, it’s perfectly logical, and there is no other faith that I would ever consider embracing.

But don’t you accept the idea of an immaterial soul? You said that between incarnations the “soul” was in some other plane of existence waiting for a new body. This would be the same as an immaterial and disembodied soul.

Lastly, being “truthful” doesn’t mean you have to be rude.

If there is an ugly woman in the room, you would say, “Boy are you ugly,” but I would remain silent and try to find some inward beauty.

Yes, you would be telling the truth, but in a way that was unnecessary and hurtful.

You need to learn some manners, dude.

#36

Thomas to Surya…If there is an ugly woman in the room, you would say, “Boy are you ugly,” but I would remain silent and try to find some inward beauty.

What would say Surya?

#37

I’m exaggerating, of course.

The point is that it’s rude and disrespectful to say “My religion is great and your religion sucks.”

#38

Hi Thomas…well it is tactless but as you can see, Surya missed a point which was crucial in delivery. Without that missing bit, yes it was rude, I agree.
Trouble is the Religious part of the forum always produces trouble of some sort or another, as you’ve seen.

Everyone holding their beliefs strongly and defending them vehemently.
I try to relax a bit now Im used to it. After all its only thoughts being expressed, doesn’t mean they are the final words in the listeners/readers mind, does it xx

#39

I did not see a lot of tolerance and respect for Pandara’s faith in Liberal catholicism and the Gnostic sects of Christianity.

Christianity does not embrace reincarnation.

Gnostic Christianity does. The early church fathers did. Your sect - Roman catholicism - does not speak for all of Christianity.

If Christianity is not logical to you, then you shouldn’t be a Chiristian. To me, it’s perfectly logical, and there is no other faith that I would ever consider embracing.

Logic is not about opinion. Something is either logical or it is not. Your beliefs are not logical.

But don’t you accept the idea of an immaterial soul? You said that between incarnations the “soul” was in some other plane of existence waiting for a new body. This would be the same as an immaterial and disembodied soul.

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. My soul is eternal, it was never created, it has always existed. It comes into association with a body and controls a body. Then when that body is gone, it comes into association with another body and controls that.

So it is not logically inconsistent for my soul to live on after the death of the body because it never was in the body in the first place. It was simply in association with it. It is logically inconsistent for your soul to live after death because it was created simultaneously with the body and is fused with the body.

Let S represent soul and B represent body

S with B = person = Hinduism
S+B = person = Christianity

In the Hindu case because S is only in association with B, if B goes, S remains complete. There is no effect to S. But with B gone the personality is completely gone.

In Christian case if B goes it affects S, because S has never existed on its own but always combined with B. Therefore S is incomplete. And with B gone there is half a personality. This makes no sense at all. This means in the Christian conception the soul in the afterlife is half a person.

Then it gets even more bizarre when you say one day, half of the person in the soul will come back and combine with other half of the body and then together will become immortal. But S+B were created at time t, then S went to the afterlife and B decomposed. Then when the day arrives, S will come back to B, and will become timeless. But S and B cannot become timeless because they have a beginning at time t.

Not to mention that B will have decomposed and part of its particles will have turned into other things.

In short the Christian case makes no sense whatsoever. Like I said don’t hide behind faith. It does not change the fact that it makes no sense at all.

#40

Like I said we Hindus are allowed to question our religion and reject whatever does not make sense. Similarly, we are allowed to question even your religion. In fact we can question anything and everything. This is what our religion teaches us. The great spirit of skepticism is present as early as the Rig Veda, in the hymn of creation, where the risi even questions whether god knows or not knows.

Here is why the Hindu case makes sense. The soul and the body are clearly different because the body is simply the possession of the soul. This is why we say “my body” We do not say “I the body” I say my arm, by legs, my brain. My legs, arm and body do not say “mine” they are unconscious parts that “I” control. These parts grow and die every moment on the cellular level and throughout my lifetime this body I have has changed many times. I do not have the same body as I had when I was a kid. The food I consume becomes my body and adds to it. Therefore the body depends on me, I do not depend on the body. Therefore clearly I am not the body. Henceforth, I do not cease to exist if I lose this body.

I can therefore take on many bodies. I am not limited to this body. I am just in association with it. In the same way a computer game player is in association with computer character he is controlling in a computer game. What brings me in association with body is my desire to play - just like a computer game player desires to play the game. I want to play this game, so I am brought in association with bodies. As soon as the want is gone and I get bored of this game, then I will no longer have to come into association with bodies.

What is the empirical proof of this? Past life memories, past life birthmarks, past life skills and aptitudes being transferred over.

The Hindu case checks out both against reason and evidence. The christian case? Ever seen a skeleton come back to life and turn into a person?