arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (03/16/90)
In article <Mar.13.03.25.49.1990.13844@athos.rutgers.edu> CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg (William de Corbie)) writes: >This shows how Hindu mission works: it tries to put Hindu teachings >as a meta-level over Christianity. It never denies any teaching of >any religion. It says yes to everything, but carefully molds its >followers in Hindu ways of thought, such as reincarnation and >many other ideas which are incompatible with historical Christianity. On a tangential thought, I wonder how many Christians out there believe in reincarnation, or can at least acknowledge that it isn't totally incompatible with Christianity. I also wonder what sort of scriptural evidence there is for or against reincarnation, such as when Jesus proclaims that John the Baptist is Elijah, presumably reincarnated. (To be fair, most biblical scholars would say that Jesus did not literally mean that John the Baptist was the same person as Elijah.) I don't want this to degenerate into a discussion of the merits and pitfalls of New Age theology, since it is problematic to merge that theology into any but the most watered down Christianity. But as a practicing Catholic, I have tried to integrate the concept of reincarnation into my faith. I see salvation as a process, often long and painful, which frees us from sin and radically transforms us. It seems only natural to allow this transformation to occur even over several lifetimes. Karma, then, is not a punishment, but an opportunity for the spirit to grow and progress. Where does Christ fit into this picture? It is through Him that we are saved; the only difference is that the process of salvation now spans several lifetimes. What if you are reincarnated into different faiths over different lifetimes? The only answer I have to that is that people in some sense choose to reincarnate, and so if you are serious about following Christ, then you will choose to reincarnate as a Christian. Now I freely admit that there is little support for this point of view in Scripture, but neither is there much support for the concept of Purgatory, which addresses the same question: What happens to a person who dies accepting Christ but is not yet "ready" for Heaven? The only difference is that once in Purgatory a person is assured of Heaven, whereas when reincarnated a person still has the option to accept or reject Christ. Comments? Alex
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (12/13/90)
Joe Buehler writes: > Reincarnation itself is radically incompatible with Catholicism, > especially as regards the last things: death, judgement, Heaven, Hell. > Once you're dead, your fate is decided for all eternity. > > The council referred to was in 543; it wasn't the general council > Constantinople II, which was indeed in 553. The council was against the > errors of Origen. One of them regarded the origin of the soul. Not quite. What is being referred to *is* the Fifth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Second Council of Constantinople. This is the council which (allegedly) ratified Emperor Justinian's "anathemas against Origen", including one against the teaching of pre-existence and reincarnation. The following excerpts are from *Reincarnation in the World's Religions*, by Joseph Head and S.I. Cranston: "... At Justinian's instigation a local synod, convened in Constantinople in the year 543, condemned the teachings of Origen, and ten years later, in 553, Justinian issued his anathemas against Origen, possibly submitting them for final ratification at an extra- conciliary session of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (also called the Second Council of Constantinople). The anathemas cursed among other teachings the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul." "Quoting directly from *The Catholic Encyclopedia* (XI, 311) regarding the Fifth Ecumenical Council: 'Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. [The section on Origen was written by Father Ferdinand Prat, S.J., member of the Biblical Commission, College St. Michel, Brussels.]" > That's what this is all about: confusion in the cited reference between > reincarnation and various theories of the origin of the human soul. There is no confusion. Here is the First Anathema [curse] against Origen: "If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema." [Taken from *A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church*, Vol. 14, series 2, entitled "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church", edited by Henry R. Percival, M.A., D.D. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900), pp. 318-20.] Here is additional information: "That Origen taught the pre-existence of the soul in past world-orders of this earth and its reincarnation in future worlds is beyond question. An occasional dispute has arisen as to whether he taught pre-existence and reincarnation on this earth as presently constituted. According to *The Catholic Encyclopedia* (Article 'Metampsychosis', 1913 edition), he did so teach. ..." "It is not strange, of course, that Origen should teach reincarnation, for he was an ardent Platonist and also had strong Gnostic tendencies." [From *Reincarnation in World Thought*, Head and Cranston, page 101.] > There has been, in the past, some argument over the exact mode and > manner of the origin of the human soul. That is undoubtedly how > Cardinal Mercier got into this; he was a famous theologian, and was > presumably involved in some discussion over pre-existence, which has > nothing to do with reincarnation. Cardinal Mercier speaks for himself in *Psychologie*: "Under the term *Wiedermenschwerdung*, [again-human being-becoming], metempsychosis, [the passing of the soul at death into another body], or the transmigration of souls, a great variety of ideas may be understood: either a series of repetitions of existence under the twofold condition that the soul maintains consciousness of its personality and that there is a final unit in the series of trans- migrations; or a series of repetitions of existence ... So far as concerns the first assumption, we do not see that reason, if left to itself, would declare this to be impossible or certainly false." As to the relationship between pre-existence and reincarnation, (I am not referring to a specific church doctrine, but rather speaking logically): Pre-existence has everything to do with reincarnation. Without pre-existence, reincarnation would be logically impossible. Once one accepts the fact that the soul is in existence *before* it enters into the physical body, it becomes the next logical step to recognize the reality also of reincarnation, (unless one chooses to hold to a "literal" interpretation of several Scriptural passages which seem to speak against it.) BTW, there are many well-documented cases that have convinced those who have studied them of the reality of reincarnation, but perhaps they don't count? Also, the famous Konnersreuth Case, the stigmatism of Therese Neumann, is in fact a case of "sowing and reaping" from a former lifetime, but I have heard that many chose to view this poor soul as a "saint" rather than one in dire need of atonement for a past transgression. > The present state of Catholic doctrine is that souls are immediately > created by God out of nothing, then infused into the body. > > In the early Church, several views were held. St. Augustine, in > particular, wavered between that just mentioned and the idea that the > soul of a child was somehow derived from the soul of the parents. This > made it easier to understand original sin, I suppose. But most of the > Fathers and later teachers held the creation theory. And what has happened along the way to this present doctrine? How was the opposing doctrine dealt with? There was the questionable proceedings of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but how utterly indescribable must have been the horror of the Inquisition. Once again from *Reincarnation in World Thought* by Head and Cranston: "Soon the iron hand of the 'Holy' Inquisition was to descend over most of Europe, and for several centuries heretic-hunting on the part of the masses and clergy alike raged with unparalleled fury, sending to the stake, as sons of Satan, hundreds of thousands of these brave, free-thinking Christians. Gradually the night of enslavement over the human mind came to an end. But as to rein- carnation, the supposed curse against pre-existence of A.D. 553, followed later by the indefatigable work of the Inquisitors, proved exceedingly effective. Reincarnation was now dead to the masses of people in the West. Henceforth, and until the latter half of the nineteenth century, only among philosophers, writers, and a few daring theologians, was the doctrine to be quietly welcomed. "Let us conclude this historical survey with a quick glance at some of the religious beliefs of the Middle Ages, and then ask ourselves if it is conceivable that the philosophy of karma and rebirth could obtain a hearing among the orthodox of this time. St. Paul had confirmed the law of karma when he said: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) Jesus taught similarly: "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt 7:2) But this was opposed to the dominant belief of the Dark Ages-- the Old Testament teaching of original sin. Humanity for countless generations reaped what someone else--Adam--had sown. Belief in salvation by proxy, or vicarious atonement, was one escape; for- giveness of sins via the confessional another. An unconfessed sin could reap everlasting torture. The scales of justice did not, and were not expected to, balance. "How could people steeped in these beliefs entertain the idea of many lives? Karma and reincarnation imply individual responsibility; each man his own saviour and redeemer; each enjoys or suffers in exact proportion to thoughts and deeds in this or a former incarn- ation. It was the dead letter rendering of the Old Testament teachings that obviously prevailed during medieval times, not the spirit of the New Testament. 'Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,' said Christ. (Matt 5:48) In this latter view man was not a weak, miserable sinner, but a being of dignity and power. 'Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)." > Joe Buehler Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [In order to claim that Paul supports "karma", you have to use it in a very general sense, to mean that a person's fate follows from his decisions. Most people understand the term to refer to inheriting results from a previous life, which Paul certainly does not teach. Even the general claim that you get what you deserve would have to be heavily qualified by his ideas on grace. By the way, the anathema that you quote appears to be from the first gathering in 543, not the 5th ecumenical. I happen to have a copy of the first 11 of the anathemas of the 5th ecumenical, and the first one involves an issue of Trinitarian theology, directed against Theodore of Mopsuestia, not Origen. Origen is mentioned only in the 11th (which as you indicate is often considered to be a later interpolation into the text), and only in a list of heretics of various random sorts. So at most the 5th ecumenical endorsed the judgement of the gathering in 543. I'm not sure whether this agrees or disagrees with what you are saying. As you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion among scholars as to exactly what position, if any, the 5th ecumenical took on Origen. Probably it rubber-stamped the earlier condemnation in a summary fashion. But it does not appear that those condemnations actually made it into the output of the council itself. --clh]
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (12/14/90)
Mark Sandrock quoting from *Reincarnation in World Religions* writes: >> St. Paul had confirmed the law of karma when he said: "Be not >> deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that >> shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) Jesus taught similarly: "With what >> measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matt 7:2) Our moderator responds: >[In order to claim that Paul supports "karma", you have to use it in a >very general sense, to mean that a person's fate follows from his >decisions. Most people understand the term to refer to inheriting >results from a previous life, which Paul certainly does not teach. >Even the general claim that you get what you deserve would have to be >heavily qualified by his ideas on grace. Sorry, but I do not read these words (Gal 6:7) and (Matt 7:2) at all in a "general sense". They sound quite specific and unconditional to me. Words like "whatsoever" and "shall" indicate an *unfailing* lawfulness. Not to mention the fact that one can look out the window and see that the Law of Sowing and Reaping also takes effect unfailingly in the physical world all about us. I agree that Paul does not specifically teach sowing and reaping *from former lives*, but did he teach against it? Is it perhaps implicit in (Gal 6:7)? Did he teach everything? What about "For we know but in part..." It does then become a repetitious debate, so I will say no more. As for grace, or love, it does not negate justice, but rather helps us to find our way *within* the operation of the lawful justice of Creation. Our path can be made as easy or as hard as we choose to go. The grace is the help we can receive in our time of need. The laws cannot be overthrown in any case as Jesus Himself had indicated. And so acquiring the knowledge of the Laws of Creation should have to be of paramount importance to mankind. And this is exactly the purpose of the Grail Message: to give us the knowledge of the Laws of Creation, so that we can surely find our way therein. (2 Peter 1:5 reminds us of importance of *knowledge* as well.) >By the way, the anathema that you quote appears to be from the first >gathering in 543, not the 5th ecumenical. I happen to have a copy of I should have been more specific. The anathema against Origen that I quoted was *Justinian's First Anathema against Origen* not that of the Second Ecumenical Council. My point was to demonstrate that it was not just a question of pre-existence at stake, but also of reincarnation. >--clh] Best regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (12/14/90)
Mark Sandrock quoted Cardinal Mercier (with some editing by me):
Under the term *Wiedermenschwerdung*, [again-human being-becoming],
metempsychosis, [the passing of the soul at death into another
body], or the transmigration of souls, a great variety of ideas may
be understood:
either a series of repetitions of existence under the twofold
condition that the soul maintains consciousness of its personality
and that there is a final unit in the series of trans- migrations;
or a series of repetitions of existence ...
So far as concerns the first assumption, we do not see that reason,
if left to itself, would declare this to be impossible or certainly
false."
One thing is eminently clear from the last paragraph: The Cardinal is
speaking in the last paragraph without reference to Christianity.
St. Thomas Aquinas spoke similarly with regard to the age of the world.
He said that reason could not demonstrate that the world did not exist
from eternity.
However, he also said that it was clearly known from Scripture that the
world was created in time.
Cardinal Mercier is making a similar sort of statement. If queried
about what Faith says regarding reincarnation, he would say
reincarnation is erroneous.
Also, the famous Konnersreuth Case, the stigmatism of Therese
Neumann, is in fact a case of "sowing and reaping" from a former
lifetime, but I have heard that many chose to view this poor soul as
a "saint" rather than one in dire need of atonement for a past
transgression.
(For those who do not know, Therese Neumann was a Bavarian mystic who
lived within the last 100 years or so. Like all mystics, she underwent
*great* suffering.)
It is indeed possible that Therese Neumann may be a canonized saint some
day, but the explanation for her sufferings does not lie in a previous
life. Aren't you familiar with the Christian doctrine on suffering?
Soon the iron hand of the 'Holy' Inquisition was to descend over
most of Europe, and for several centuries heretic-hunting on the
part of the masses and clergy alike raged with unparalleled fury,
sending to the stake, as sons of Satan, hundreds of thousands of
these brave, free-thinking Christians. Gradually the night of
enslavement over the human mind came to an end.
Hmmm. Revisionist history. Sigh.
It sure is wonderful that we live in the late 20th century, where the
pure unadulterated light of the Gospel shines forth clearly through the
Holy Bible,
cleverly twisted by any demagogue who can lay his grimy paws on one,
(Hey! That wasn't in the script!)
and free people from any truly unfortunate grasp they may have had on
the truth in these matters, (Slaves! They're slaves, I tell you!)
(Hey! Stop that!)
dragging them away from the wisdom of their Christian forefathers (but
we're really *so* much more clever now than Augustine, Nazianzen,
Chrysostom, Jerome, Bernard, Aquinas and the rest, you know. *We* have
electric toothbrushes! Can you imagine theology without McDonald's
french fries?)
(No use. Must be a virus. Time to reboot.)
Joe Buehler :-)gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (01/03/91)
All this discussion on reincarnation got me to thinking. If my understanding is correct, people reincarnate until they have progressed to the point where they become enlightened to the fact that they are God. Each reincarnation is intended to bring about payment for past lives where the person has done things "wrong." This in essence is karma. Now I have a few questions and problems with this. First of all, it seems that we have no conscious knowledge of our former lives and what we've done wrong. So here we are to pay for what we've done in a previous life, but we can't even remember what it is that we did wrong. This is rather like punishing a child for something it did two or three years ago. The punishment means nothing and the supposed "wrong doing" remains unconnected with the present punishment. Secondly, there is much talk about seeking help from various "ascended masters." This seems a pretty wise thing to do if reincarnation is true. However, if the goal of reincarnation is Moksha, Nirvikalpa Samadhi, Sat-Chit-Ananda, or in English "eternal liberation" through merging with God (or the Paramatma), then who are these supposed ascended masters!? They are the "old souls" with a history of almost endless reincarnations, and apparently, they are still around and separate from God. Doesn't sound to me like they have escaped karma at all, frankly. So why should anyone trust them? In fact, in reading some of the Seth material, Jane Roberts talks about what happened when Seth II entered her life. This being traumatized her severely. She says that she was beginning to feel violated by this being. This is not unlike some of the testimony given by those who got very deeply involved in TM and other similar mystical practices. One student of TM attended one of the advanced courses at a European institute for TM. During one session, the guides that this person had come to rely upon turned into demons seeking to rend him limb from limb. To make matters worse, these creatures made it plain that all of the spirit guides were in fact demons. The other problem that I have is that reincarnation is part a parcel to much of the Gnostic and Eastern mystical philosophies. As such, the view of God is one that makes God impersonal. It does away with the Christian view of a personal, Creator God that we can approach and know here and now. Further, these beliefs postulate that the mystery of man's ultimate identity is finally revealed as his divinity within. Since all things are made of God (not by God), man in his deepest self is none other than God. But without "enlightenment," he does not know this (see my previous comments on reincarnation) and, in effect, lives as an amnesiac. The purpose of man is to realize that he is God, thus ending the "illusion" of separation. This is supposed to be the death of the Christian God, freeing man. And I'm constrained to point out here, that getting rid of the Christian God does not mean that people believe in nothing, but rather that they believe in anything (with all due respects to G. K. Chesterton for this insight). Further, reincarnation means that there is no death. As parts of God we are immortal, and death is only an illusion as we evolve throughout eternity. However, if we turn back to Genesis 3, we find that this is the old lie spoken by the evil one. He attempted to cast doubt upon the veracity of God Almighty -- 'Did God really say that? Really!?' But not content to merely cast doubt upon what God says as being truthful, the evil one then proceeds to compound the lie by telling Eve that God knows that they won't die, but rather eating the fruit will make them, Adam and Eve, to be as God, knowing good from evil. And today, we persist in striving to be God. So much energy is spent on trying to argue for the view that humans are God -- deep down inside. And further, that each of us does not really die, but we merely pass on to another plane of existence to be reincarnated at some future time to repay the karmic debt of previous lives. And if reincarnation is true, then we choose our future lives. Thus, the poor cripple on the street corner is responsible for choosing that life. And the wealthy millionnaire living high above the rest of us is also responsible for choosing that life. And we can conclude from all of this that poverty is a choice made by those who are poor, so why bother to aid the poor for making a less than good choice!? Let the cripple help himself as best he is able; after all, he made his choice. And each of us must focus on our own move to the final union with the eternal. Helping another reach this goal is sometimes worthy if it helps your own karmic load, but other than that what purpose does it serve? This is supposed to end the negative results of the Christian concept of sin. Sin causes guilt, but knowing that we are responsible for choosing to be born a poor cripple obviates guilt. And for me this is very twisted logic. Sin can be forgiven, and the power of the living God can heal broken bodies, minds, and souls. Karma and reincarnation chains us to an endless wheel who final resting place is as yet unknown to those upon it, but not so for the Christian. Still, there are those who will refuse to see what lies ahead on this broad road so well travelled. Can it really be that reincarnation and all that goes with it will save one soul from perdition? There is a lot of supposed evidence for past lives. What I found interesting when I was studying reincarnation many years ago before coming to Jesus, is that I met a lot of people who claimed to have undergone past lives regression -- and they claimed to be the same person in the past. I can't tell you how interesting it is to meet so many Abraham Lincoln's at one time, but I met three of them in one party I went to. Yet, each of them had "proof" from their past lives regression that they said was solid evidence. And why is it that the vast majority of those undergoing past lives regression seem to have only been the cream of the crop, so to speak. I've heard so very few speak of being paupers or nobodies. But I have heard a lot speak of having been Cleopatra or some other famous or important personage. And even with those few who admit to having been one of the masses at some point or another, they invariably balance this with having been "a very big hot-shot in Atlantis." And as if to further prove their point, those who believe in reincarnation rip out passages from the Scriptures and say, "See, Jesus and the apostles were talking about reincarnation." They seem oblivious to homelitics, exegesis, and the original languages. For example, take the way that atonement is twisted to mean "At-one-ment." Meaning, a pantheistic, monistic, syncretic view. However, that is not the given meaning of atonement. The root word is "atone" coming from ME "atonen" meaning to become reconciled. Thus, atonement means reconciliation, in this case between man and God through the propitiation for sin by Jesus Christ. And to take what Paul says out of context and wrap it in a gnostic or Eastern mystical wrapper does not alter the original meaning in the slightest. If reincarnation is what a person wants to believe in, then nothing I, nor anyone else, can say will stop them. All that can stop that person is an encounter with the true and living God Almighty. As for me and my house, to side with Joshua of old, we will serve the God Creator, and Him only will we serve. Gene Gross
blind@brahms.udel.edu (Rebecca Carlisle Blind) (06/06/91)
I have been a Christian for about 5 years now. A friend of mine and I were discussing reincarnation, which I do not believe in. He does believe that it is a possibility because he says that he has found no where in the Bible anything against reincarnation. I have always believed that since reincarnation in believed in by other religions, such as the Buddist religion and the Hindu religion, which worship false gods, that it is wrong. My friend does not agree with me. If someone could tell me where the Bible agrees with reincarnation or is against it I would really appreciate it. I am very confused at the moment. I have always understood that when we die we will go to heaven and be with God but according to my friend maybe there is time before we go to heaven and in thyat time we are reincarnated and we continue to do that until we are perfect enough to be be with God. If anyone can give me some insight I would be very happy. Thanks in advance. God Bless You Lisle Blind /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ \ Rebecca Carlisle Blind \ I will not be a pawn for the Prince \ / / of Darkness any longer. / \ blind@brahms.udel.edu \ -Indigo Girls \ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
rb65@prism.gatech.edu (Butera, Robert J.) (06/07/91)
In article <Jun.5.23.52.08.1991.1317@athos.rutgers.edu> blind@brahms.udel.edu (Rebecca Carlisle Blind) writes: > >but according to my friend maybe there is time before we go to heaven >and in thyat time we are reincarnated and we continue to do that until >we are perfect enough to be be with God. If anyone can give me some >insight I would be very happy. Thanks in advance. >God Bless You >Lisle Blind > Your friend sounds quite Hindu or Krishna-like to me. One of the major tenets of Christianity revolves around what happens when we die! If we are saved, we will be with Christ in heaven, if not, we'll be in Hell. There is no middle ground or period of waiting - the Roman Catholic Church renounced the concept of purgatory years ago. Maybe reincarnation is a form of hell, but it sure isn't salvation. I reccomend the book "Life in the Afterlife" by Tim LaHaye published by Tyndale House in 1981. It explores reports of "out of body" experiences by people who have nearly died (or clinically died) and compares the similarities in their accounts with scripture. It also does a rather exhaustive study of all the accounts of heaven and hell in scripture. -- Robert J. Butera, Jr. Georgia Tech Research Institute Internet: rb65@prism.gatech.edu "My opinions, not Georgia Tech's"
lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L) (06/07/91)
I can't remember where abouts in the Bible it disagrees with reincarnation,
but there are plenty of places, as I recall. The general sort of
feel I get from the Bible is that when we die, we sleep until the
end of time, when we are all resurrected at once.
As for re-incarnation, I read a book once, by a chap called John Gribbin,
who had all sorts of theories about how time and space curve and bend
so much, that quite separate bits of space and time get pulled close
together, and people may come into close contact with people in the
past or future. This may explain what we interpret as the "symptoms"
of reincarnation.
Or maybe not. I don't know - it's just an idea.
--
KRAKEN...............................alias.......................L McIlhoney
Year 2, Dept. of Electronic Engineering
E-mail LM89@UK.AC.SOTON.ECS University of Southampton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then we have at least
to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the
family Anatidae on our hands."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------zorak@cs.pdx.edu (Krezo) (06/07/91)
blind@brahms.udel.edu (Rebecca Carlisle Blind) writes: > I have been a Christian for about 5 years now. A friend of mine and I >were discussing reincarnation, which I do not believe in. He does >believe that it is a possibility because he says that he has found no >where in the Bible anything against reincarnation. >...If someone >could tell me where the Bible agrees with reincarnation or is against it >I would really appreciate it. I am very confused at the moment. I have >always understood that when we die we will go to heaven and be with God >but according to my friend maybe there is time before we go to heaven >and in thyat time we are reincarnated and we continue to do that until >we are perfect enough to be be with God. If anyone can give me some >insight I would be very happy. Thanks in advance. >God Bless You It sounds like your friend believes that a person can earn his way into heaven. As you and I know, that is not true. I am no scholar and often forget details about the bible, but I do know that the bible says that man is only supposed to die once. If you have a concordance look up death and read everything. There is one verse in the bible that many religions try to use to support reincarnation. Again I can't remember the verse, or the word, but if someone else out there can quote that for me it would be greatly appreciated. When it is found, then get ahold of a dictionary and compare the definitions of the word in the bible, and reincarnation. And don't forget to take the word in context of the surrounding scripture.. I'm sorry if I wasn't of much help. God Bless you.
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (06/10/91)
Re: Rebecca Carlisle Blind In article <Jun.5.23.52.08.1991.1317@athos.rutgers.edu>, blind@brahms.udel.edu (Rebecca Carlisle Blind) writes: > I have been a Christian for about 5 years now. A friend of mine and I >were discussing reincarnation, which I do not believe in. He does >believe that it is a possibility because he says that he has found no >where in the Bible anything against reincarnation. Hi, Rebecca! (Sorry if that isn't the name you like to go by! :j ) Well... the topic of reincarnation is a complex one, and disproof of it would require more than simply looking for Biblical texts which seem to disprove it. Strictly speaking, there are no Scriptural passages which directly preclude reincarnation; one could always find "loopholes" in Scripture to allow for such belief (though, admittedly, there is an overall "sense" of having only one finite life followed by judgement day... Jesus's teachings were set in such a context [Mark 12:18-27, John 11], as was the teaching of the ancient Israelites; otherwise, the idea of reincarnation would not seem so strange to Christians); rather, it is an article of faith concerning whether or not one is reincarnated or not. It would be kind of you to remember, however, that your friend may not be Christian, and might therefore not be one to accept Christian teaching. In that sense, he has a right to believe in whatever faith he wishes, as do you. That's a key point, as well: you are certainly not obligated to *agree* with his beliefs! If it's any consolation, there are millions upon millions of Christians who refuse to believe in reincarnation, as well. > I have always believed that since reincarnation in believed in by >other religions, such as the Buddist religion and the Hindu religion, >which worship false gods, that it is wrong. :) Whoops! One must be careful about thinking that; Hindus believe in good works and charity, too... and these certainly aren't false just because they worship different gods! > I am very confused at the moment. I have >always understood that when we die we will go to heaven and be with God >but according to my friend maybe there is time before we go to heaven >and in thyat time we are reincarnated and we continue to do that until >we are perfect enough to be be with God. If anyone can give me some >insight I would be very happy. Thanks in advance. :) Again, your friend seems to have "merged" the Hindu faith (or perhaps the Buddhist faith, in some fashion) and Christianity together for himself. He has a right to believe such, but he does NOT have the right to attempt to grieve YOU because of your disagreement. Make that clear to him; he has his beliefs, and you have yours, and the two are simply incompatible. The fact that he's your friend does not change the fact that you simply can't accept his beliefs personally... and it SHOULDN'T change that fact. On a logical point: it's uncertain as to whether there would be "time" before we go to Heaven. If one dies, one's spirit leaves one's body, according to common Christian teaching. Thus, it may very well leave the normal world of space and time. Such a "timeless" thing would not sense any delay between death and judgement; the elapsed "time" would seem to be instantaneous. So, while there is no strict proof AGAINST your friend's position (in the Bible, anyway), there is no SUPPORT for such a position, either... neither from the Bible nor from Christian tradition, nor from philosophy. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.09.31.1991.8272@athos.rutgers.edu> rb65@prism.gatech.edu (Butera, Robert J.) writes:
There is no middle ground or period of waiting - the
Roman Catholic Church renounced the concept of purgatory years ago.
coff coff coff.
The RCC doesn't renounce *any* of its conciliar statements.
-mibconan@jif.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.09.31.1991.8272@athos.rutgers.edu> rb65@prism.gatech.edu (Butera, Robert J.) writes: >If we are saved, we will be with Christ in heaven, if not, we'll >be in Hell. There is no middle ground or period of waiting - the >Roman Catholic Church renounced the concept of purgatory years ago. >Maybe reincarnation is a form of hell, but it sure isn't salvation. > Just a point of correction: The Roman Catholic church has _not_ renounce the concept of purgatory--it is still part of our world view. There have been some peripheral changes--penalties gained and remitted in purgatory for venial sins or acts of piety are not longer counted with the precision of a bank auditor. But the concept of a place or state of preparation antecedent to heaven is still alive and strong. Purgatory in no way can be used to justify re-incarnation though--it's better to think of it as the cloakroom of heaven :-). Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
smith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Roy Smith jr) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.5.23.52.08.1991.1317@athos.rutgers.edu> blind@brahms.udel.edu (Rebecca Carlisle Blind) writes: > >He does >believe that it is a possibility because he says that he has found no >where in the Bible anything against reincarnation. > >Lisle Blind > Hebrews 9:27-8 says, "Just as man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people;" This is one verse that sticks out in my mind that certainly does not support any type of reincarnation view. I would say to your friend that no where in the Bible is there anything in support of reincarnation. The Bible doesn't say that we will be recycled into some other life form when we die. It says we die and face judgment and that's it. --- Jim Smith Northwestern University smith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (06/12/91)
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes: > Well... the topic of reincarnation is a complex one, and > disproof of it would require more than simply looking for Biblical > texts which seem to disprove it. Strictly speaking, there are no > Scriptural passages which directly preclude reincarnation; one could > always find "loopholes" in Scripture to allow for such belief > (though, admittedly, there is an overall "sense" of having only one > finite life followed by judgement day... Jesus's teachings were > set in such a context [Mark 12:18-27, John 11], as was the teaching of > the ancient Israelites; otherwise, the idea of reincarnation would > not seem so strange to Christians); rather, it is an article of > faith concerning whether or not one is reincarnated or not. Reincarnation is not really so complex, but rather, accepting the reality of this happening allows one to understand and to explain many otherwise inexplicable events, both past and present. The existence of "stigmata" and "child prodigies", for example, as well as in general the apparent "injustice" in the various circumstances into which people are born. In reality, there can be no injustice here, as every incarnation takes place according to the simple, inexerable laws of Creation, which fulfill justice. (The laws of "sowing and reaping" and also "like attracts like".) Looking at the Bible, one can see that the idea of reincarnation was not unknnown to the disciples by their question to Jesus: "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1-2) The response of Jesus to their question was not a refutation of the sense of the question, but rather an explanation that this was a special case, and therefore one not anticipated by the disciples in their question. Thus, Jesus did not speak against reincarnation, nor did He speak in favor of it, as far as we know. There are also the questions to Jesus (Matt 16:14) and to John the Baptist (John 1:21) as to whether each was the reincarnation of the Prophet Elias.. The following words also point to the reality of prenatal existence: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer 1:5) Although we do not have any words of Jesus refering explicitly to the fact of reincarnation, certain of His words refer indirectly to it... "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulflled." (Matt 24:34) The meaning here is that all those human souls incarnated in the Jewish people during Christ's lifetime who had not accepted his teaching, or had even reviled, mocked, and persecuted Him, would be incarnated again on earth today at the time of the Last Judgment in order to have to make their final decision for or against the Message of God... Too, the words of Paul, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) express the knowledge of the Law of Sowing and Reaping, which is often carried out over the course of several earth lives. Today, reincarnation is considered to be "Eastern thought". It is the Christian teachings above all which reject reincarnation, or the exist- ence of the soul before incarnation. If we inquire as to how this rejection has come about, we find that at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553 it was decided to annul the doctrine of reincarnation. But already in 543 the "divine emperor" Justinian had issued an edict (Canones adversus Originem) against the Christian theologian Origen, who believed in reincarnation; which edict stated among other things that anyone who said or thought that the souls of men had an earlier life (pre-existence) ... and were now incarnated in bodies ... would be anathematized! The knowledge of reincarnation was thus withheld from many people, who with this knowledge could have given a deeper meaning and greater sig- nificance to their lives on earth and in the beyond. In summary, it cannot be proven that Christ did not speak about rein- carnation and that His words were simply not recorded. We do know that there were "many things He had yet to say to us" (John 16:12) and to me this demands that as followers of His Message we do our utmost to be open to that new knowledge, which shall no doubt come to us at the right time. It then becomes our own responsibility to recognize and to make use of it for our own personal spiritual awakening and ascent. Think about it! Best regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
barbie@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Barbara Fields) (06/14/91)
In response to Lisle Blind's request for specific scripture on the
subject:
"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and
after this come judgement,.." Hebrews 9:27
"If a man dies, will he live again?..." Job 14:14 (in way of
saying that this is his only chance in a life and he's going
to remain faithful to get through the hard times.
It's important to make an investment in a good but easily usable
concordance and *always* search out the Bible on subjects rather
than let too many people's opinions sway you. The "sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17) will
always cut clear the light and the dark.
****************************************************************
Barbara Fieldsejprosser@ucdavis.edu (Eric J. Prosser) (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.34.03.1991.23705@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes: > > >Looking at the Bible, one can see that the idea of reincarnation was not >unknnown to the disciples by their question to Jesus: > > "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born > blind?" (John 9:1-2) > >The response of Jesus to their question was not a refutation of the sense >of the question, but rather an explanation that this was a special case, >and therefore one not anticipated by the disciples in their question. Thus, >Jesus did not speak against reincarnation, nor did He speak in favor of it, >as far as we know. You are right. Jesus never did speak of it. I read through the CONTEXT of this passage and reincarnation has nothing to do with it. >There are also the questions to Jesus (Matt 16:14) and to John the Baptist >(John 1:21) as to whether each was the reincarnation of the Prophet Elias.. Read your Bible! 2 Kings 2:11 states that Elisha never experienced death. Again, you are reading into something that has nothing to do with reincarnation. Am I right in saying that in order for reincarnation to happen, you must experience death first? > >Mark Sandrock > Mark, take a look at all of the scripture you pointed out and read it in its complete context. Don't go into it with the mindset that you are going to prove reincarnation, but dig into it to get the entire feeling of it. And don't go reading books written by man first! Read the Bible, maybe the entire book you quoted from, and find out what Jesus was really talking about. I think you may come out seeing things clearer. My opinions have nothing to do with the University!
torbakke@loke.idt.unit.no (Torbjoern Bakke) (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.34.03.1991.23705@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: > Looking at the Bible, one can see that the idea of reincarnation was not > unknnown to the disciples by their question to Jesus: > > "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born > blind?" (John 9:1-2) How can you say that these verses support the belief that the disciples believed in reincarnation? Are you implying that they thought the man was a reincarnation of his parents? (they were still alive) No - I can not see that this verse in any way supports the idea that the disciples believed in reincarnation. > .... > There are also the questions to Jesus (Matt 16:14) and to John the Baptist > (John 1:21) as to whether each was the reincarnation of the Prophet Elias.. And the answers to these questions where that Jesus was the Messiah, and that John the Baptist was not the Prophet Elias. These verses does not in any way support the idea of reincarnation. > The following words also point to the reality of prenatal existence: > > "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before > thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I > ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer 1:5) Or that God knew what we all will be like, even before we are created. (In this case God talks about Jeremiah) > Although we do not have any words of Jesus refering explicitly to the > fact of reincarnation, certain of His words refer indirectly to it... > > "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be > fulflled." (Matt 24:34) > > The meaning here is that all those human souls incarnated in the Jewish > people during Christ's lifetime who had not accepted his teaching, or had > even reviled, mocked, and persecuted Him, would be incarnated again on > earth today at the time of the Last Judgment in order to have to make > their final decision for or against the Message of God... No, I do not think so - I believe that we got only one chance (one lifetime) to accept Jesus as our saviour. I think this is supported in Hebrews 9:27-28 and John 11. I would rather believe what is directly supported by the bible than believing something that is "not denied". > Too, the words of Paul, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." > (Gal 6:7) express the knowledge of the Law of Sowing and Reaping, which > is often carried out over the course of several earth lives. You don't need several earth lives to verify this verse, it can easily be done during one earth-life (or even in one day). The idea of reincarnation and karma comes from Greek philosophers like Plato, and from "mystical" religions like Hinduism, New Age etc. It does not come from the bible. > Today, reincarnation is considered to be "Eastern thought". It is the > Christian teachings above all which reject reincarnation, or the exist- > ence of the soul before incarnation. I think the rejection of reincarnation is very legitimate. The bible tells us that we will die only once (that is - before the final judgement). Keep in mind that the bible talks about a first death, and a second death. There is no third, fourth or fifth death. > [...deleted stuff about the annulment of the doctrine of reincarnation > and anathematization...] > > The knowledge of reincarnation was thus withheld from many people, who > with this knowledge could have given a deeper meaning and greater sig- > nificance to their lives on earth and in the beyond. Reincarnation has nothing to do with knowledge, it is a matter of belief. In my opinion reincarnation is a delusion that lead people away from the heart of the matter, namely that we can have eternal life if we believe in Jesus (John 3:16). > In summary, it cannot be proven that Christ did not speak about rein- > carnation and that His words were simply not recorded. We do know that > there were "many things He had yet to say to us" (John 16:12) and to me > this demands that as followers of His Message we do our utmost to be open > to that new knowledge, which shall no doubt come to us at the right time. > > It then becomes our own responsibility to recognize and to make use of it > for our own personal spiritual awakening and ascent. Think about it! Jesus still had many things to say to us before he died, and I am sure he still has. But - I do not believe that he ever will support the theory of reincarnation. The laws of karma as we find them in New Age and eastern religions seem to contradict the fact that it is not our deeds that save us, it is the grace of God. -Torbjoern- -- ----- Torbjorn Bakke (Research Assistant) Internet: torbakke@idt.unit.no Div. of Computer Systems & Telematics torbakke@solan.unit.no Norwegian Institute of Technology
90babcock@gw.wmich.edu (06/15/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.09.31.1991.8272@athos.rutgers.edu>, rb65@prism.gatech.edu (Butera, Robert J.) writes: > In article <Jun.5.23.52.08.1991.1317@athos.rutgers.edu> blind@brahms.udel.edu (Rebecca Carlisle Blind) writes: >> > Your friend sounds quite Hindu or Krishna-like to me. One of the > major tenets of Christianity revolves around what happens when we die! > If we are saved, we will be with Christ in heaven, if not, we'll > be in Hell. There is no middle ground or period of waiting - the > Roman Catholic Church renounced the concept of purgatory years ago. > Maybe reincarnation is a form of hell, but it sure isn't salvation. > The Roman Catholic Church did not renounce the teachings on purgatory. The scriptures do point to many places of afterlife, few of which can be labelled as a "Hell" or "Heaven." Teachings on Hell and Heaven speak to the point that these places are permanent. The places in the scriptures are not always permanat abodes for the dead. We hear of Gehenna, Sheol Hades and the Pit. When Christ rose from the dead many spirits appeared in the city of Jerusalem. Certainly these people were not in any permanant place. The creed states "descended to the dead." Or sometimes "into Hell." The Catholic Church teaches that purgatiry is a temorary places that one may go after death. To be purged, i.e. cleaned. It may be a place of reparation, and usually consists in a great deal of suffering. Many people that live a life with God are not prepared to face His glory immediately upon death. Peace be with you. Jeff Babcock Western Michigan University
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (06/15/91)
ejprosser@ucdavis.edu (Eric J. Prosser) writes: >In article <Jun.11.22.34.03.1991.23705@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >> >> "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born >> blind?" (John 9:1-2) >You are right. Jesus never did speak of it. I read through the CONTEXT >of this passage and reincarnation has nothing to do with it. Instead of merely invoking the word CONTEXT, why don't you say what you feel the CONTEXT to be? I will give the passage in its CONTEXT, as I understand it: And as He was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him." (John 9:1-3) Jesus then proceeded to cure the blind man. I suggest that the implication of reincarnation/pre-existence in the disciples' question was not denied by Jesus, although He certainly was presented here with the opportunity to do so, should He have wanted to. >>There are also the questions to Jesus (Matt 16:14) and to John the Baptist >>(John 1:21) as to whether each was the reincarnation of the Prophet Elias.. >Read your Bible! 2 Kings 2:11 states that Elisha never experienced death. >Again, you are reading into something that has nothing to do with >reincarnation. Am I right in saying that in order for reincarnation to >happen, you must experience death first? I do not understand 2 Kings 2:11 to state that Elias never experienced death. In the first place, everyone dies, in the earthly sense. There are no exceptions to this law. This tells us that what was seen by Eliseus must have been the non-physical body (or soul) of Elias being taken up by a "fiery chariot and fiery horses". The fact that the fifty men were unable to locate the physical body of Elias does not mean that it was taken up as well. It simply means they could not find it for whatever reason. Perhaps they were not meant to find it. Also, those questioning Jesus and John the Baptist were surely aware that these men came to earth as normal children, and not upon fiery chariots, yet they asked them just the same about Elias. And there is Matt 17:11-13 in which Jesus appears to state that John the Baptist is indeed the reincarnation of Elias. In any case, I also would suggest that CONTEXT is a tricky word to be tossing about when trying to understand statements recorded long after the fact, and translated into an entirely different language. In the final analysis I think we need to do our best to make *sense* of what we know from *all* sources, and not just to build up an entire struct- ure upon a single obscure passage or two. As I have already stated, the knowledge of reincarnation allows us to explain many otherwise inexplicable happenings, instead of simply ignoring them altogether, and in fact there are many cases which offer strong evidence for it. >Mark, take a look at all of the scripture you pointed out and read it in >its complete context. Don't go into it with the mindset that you are going >to prove reincarnation, but dig into it to get the entire feeling of it. >And don't go reading books written by man first! Read the Bible, maybe >the entire book you quoted from, and find out what Jesus was really talking >about. I think you may come out seeing things clearer. No. I do not wish to use the Bible to prove reincarnation, but simply to suggest that it is not incompatible with the original teaching of Christ. I am suggesting that reincarnation is one of the "many things" that Jesus had yet to say to us, that we would not have understood *at that time*. I see things quite clearly already, thank you, and I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that reincarnation is true and compatible with the original, undistorted Message of Christ, though He did not teach it. When presented with the opportunity to speak against reincarnation, He did not ever do so to our knowledge. But the people of that time were not yet matured enough spiritually to hear more about it. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (06/17/91)
torbakke@loke.idt.unit.no (Torbjoern Bakke) writes: >In article <Jun.11.22.34.03.1991.23705@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >> "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born >> blind?" (John 9:1-2) >How can you say that these verses support the belief that the disciples >believed in reincarnation? Are you implying that they thought the man >was a reincarnation of his parents? (they were still alive) >No - I can not see that this verse in any way supports the idea that >the disciples believed in reincarnation. This question of the disciples' is stating two possibilities for the man's blindness: (1) that it was due to the sin of his parents; or (2) that it was due to his own sin. If the man was indeed born blind due to his own sin, then this sin must have occurred prior to his birth. Unless one wishes to believe that the man had sinned while still in the womb (which someone indeed claimed to me) we are left with the sole alternative that the man had sinned in a prior existence, i.e., reincarnation and/or pre-existence. The fact that neither possibility was correct *in this particular case* does not constitute a denial of these possibilities in other cases. In other words, Jesus did not deny either possibility, but simply stated a third possibility, one which had not occurred to the disciples. Perhaps you would care to give your own interpretation of this passage? >> .... >> There are also the questions to Jesus (Matt 16:14) and to John the Baptist >> (John 1:21) as to whether each was the reincarnation of the Prophet Elias.. >And the answers to these questions where that Jesus was the Messiah, and >that John the Baptist was not the Prophet Elias. These verses does not >in any way support the idea of reincarnation. Again, when faced with questions implying reincarnation, Jesus does not deny the possibility. In fact, Jesus Himself raises the issue at one point: "Who do men say that I am?" And they told Him, John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets. (Mark 8:28) It also appears that Jesus states in Matt 11:14 and 17:11-13 that John the Baptist is in fact the reincarnation of Elias. >> >> "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be >> fulflled." (Matt 24:34) >> >> The meaning here is that all those human souls incarnated in the Jewish >> people during Christ's lifetime who had not accepted his teaching, or had >> even reviled, mocked, and persecuted Him, would be incarnated again on >> earth today at the time of the Last Judgment in order to have to make >> their final decision for or against the Message of God... >No, I do not think so - I believe that we got only one chance (one >lifetime) to accept Jesus as our saviour. I think this is supported >in Hebrews 9:27-28 and John 11. I would rather believe what is >directly supported by the bible than believing something that is >"not denied". I do not follow how John 11 (the raising of Lazarus) supports your view. In the case of Heb 9:27, I would say that if Paul was referring to physical death (rather than spiritual death), then he was mistaken. Once again, I have to ask you then, what is your own interpretation of the cited passage (Matt 24:34)? >> Too, the words of Paul, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." >> (Gal 6:7) express the knowledge of the Law of Sowing and Reaping, which >> is often carried out over the course of several earth lives. >You don't need several earth lives to verify this verse, it can >easily be done during one earth-life (or even in one day). The >idea of reincarnation and karma comes from Greek philosophers like >Plato, and from "mystical" religions like Hinduism, New Age etc. >It does not come from the bible. Although there well may be cases of sowing and reaping being carried out even instantaneously, I think there are also countless cases where it occurs over the course one or more earth lives. The Konnersreuth case of the stigmatism of Therese Neumann being one obvious example. We all know of the saying, "The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine!", but what is the meaning of it? The meaning is that sowing and reaping is not necessarily fulfilled within the limited time frame overseen by human beings in a single earth life, but it is always fulfilled just the same. And just because other peoples in other places and times already knew about reincarnation and sowing and reaping (karma) does not mean that these ideas are wrong. What would be the sense of claiming that? Gold is gold, whether a prince or a pauper holds it in his hands! In fact, the knowledge of reincarnation was at one time spreading in Europe, through the many Christian sects who had this belief, and it was only forcibly eradicated during the process of the Inquisition. Perhaps some still want to justify that travesty, but to me it clearly went against God's Will. Might has never made right, and it never shall! >I think the rejection of reincarnation is very legitimate. The >bible tells us that we will die only once (that is - before the >final judgement). Keep in mind that the bible talks about a >first death, and a second death. There is no third, fourth >or fifth death. Once again, past teachings gave mankind that which was most appropriate for his level of spiritual development *at that time*. Today we are in the position to understand far more about the Creation in which we live. And in fact we seriously *need* to do so. >Reincarnation has nothing to do with knowledge, it is a matter of >belief. In my opinion reincarnation is a delusion that lead people >away from the heart of the matter, namely that we can have eternal >life if we believe in Jesus (John 3:16). Sorry, but you cannot possibly say what another person does or does not know. You are only in the position to speak for yourself. I know that reincarnation is true, and I do not find any conflict whatsoever in it with the original teachings of Christ. BTW, John 3:16 says nothing against reincarnation. >Jesus still had many things to say to us before he died, and I am >sure he still has. But - I do not believe that he ever will support >the theory of reincarnation. The laws of karma as we find them in >New Age and eastern religions seem to contradict the fact that it is >not our deeds that save us, it is the grace of God. Once again, I believe that Jesus Himself must have spoken about sowing and reaping, and this is why it is also stated by Paul. If some want to call sowing and reaping by the name karma, I have no problem with that. It's not "new age" -- it's there in the Bible. It's just that we haven't troubled ourselves to learn more about it hitherto. The love and the grace of God exist to be quite sure, but they in no way cancel or negate the need to fulfill His Laws and His Justice. Love and justice cannot be separated, they are ultimately one. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (06/22/91)
In article <Jun.13.23.34.11.1991.15947@athos.rutgers.edu> ejprosser@ucdavis.edu (Eric J. Prosser) writes:
[Read the Bible...]
And don't go reading books written by man first! Read the Bible, maybe
the entire book you quoted from, and find out what Jesus was really talking
about.
As if the Bible wasn't written by men (and women, if many currently
popular opinions about Ruth and the Song of Songs are correct).
-mibtorbakke@loke.idt.unit.no (Torbjoern Bakke) (06/23/91)
> = sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >> = torbakke@loke.idt.unit.no (Torbjoern Bakke) writes: >>> = sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >>> "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born >>> blind?" (John 9:1-2) > > This question of the disciples' is stating two possibilities for the man's > blindness: (1) that it was due to the sin of his parents; or (2) that it > was due to his own sin. > > If the man was indeed born blind due to his own sin, then this sin must > have occurred prior to his birth..... > > Perhaps you would care to give your own interpretation of this passage? I understand what you are trying to say with this passage, but I feel that it is taken somewhat out of context. I cannot deny reincarnation out from this verse, but I cannot see how it supports reincarnation either. I think you are trying to read more out of this verse than was intended at the time of writing. The whole idea with John 9, is not only to show that Jesus can cure people physically. It is also shows us how people that are born "spiritually blind" can be cured by Jesus - they learn to see Jesus as he really is. The pharisees thought they knew the truth (that they could see) when they actually didn't know the truth (they were blind). Jesus tries to tell us that those who insist that their blindness actually is perfect vision can not be helped. This is what God tries to tell us in John 9. If he wanted to tell us that we should believe in reincarnation, I think he would have removed any doubt about the matter. John 9(:2) does neither support nor deny reincarnation. >>> There are also the questions to Jesus (Matt 16:14) and to John the Baptist >>> (John 1:21) as to whether each was the reincarnation of the Prophet Elias.. >> And the answers to these questions where that Jesus was the Messiah, and >> that John the Baptist was not the Prophet Elias. These verses does not >> in any way support the idea of reincarnation. > Again, when faced with questions implying reincarnation, Jesus does not > deny the possibility. It certainly seems like Matt 16:14 supports the idea that some people believed in reincarnation 2000 years ago also (just like today), but neither the disciples nor Jesus support this idea in any way. In fact, both Jesus and the disciples agree that Jesus was Messiah, and not a reincarnation of somebody else. I do not think that you would say that Jesus Christ was a reincarnation of some other person either. About John 1:21, a couple of verses earlier - in verse 19 - we see that it was the jews that wanted to know if John was either the Messiah, Elias or "the prophet". - If he was the Messiah, it wouldn't be reincarnation. - If he was Elias, it still wouldn't be reincarnation. Read 2 Kings 2:11. This verse clearly states that Elias never died. There has been only two persons that has gone directly to heaven without dying first. Those are Enoch (Genesis 5:24, Hebr 11:5) and Elias as stated above. Read also Luke 1:17 which I will discuss in a little while. - If it was "the prophet" it wouldn't be reincarnation. Read Deut 18:18 > In fact, Jesus Himself raises the issue at one point: > > "Who do men say that I am?" And they told Him, John the Baptist, > and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets. (Mark 8:28) Be careful! Jesus is only asking a simple question. If I asked you this same question, would you then say that I believed in reincarnation ? This verse is a parallell to Matt 16:13-16 which I have already discussed above. > It also appears that Jesus states in Matt 11:14 and 17:11-13 that John the > Baptist is in fact the reincarnation of Elias. I would like to quote Luke 1:17; "And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias...". Clearly - the bible does not mention a physical reincarnation. It seems more like Jesus is talking about what the life of John the Baptist would be like - not who he was. > I do not follow how John 11 (the raising of Lazarus) supports your view. Read John 11:11-14. Jesus first said that Lazarus was sleeping (his soul was sleeping), then he made it clear to the disciples that Lazarus was dead. Why did Jesus say that he was sleeping? How would it be possible to raise somebody from the dead if he was already reincarnated into someone else? Read John 11:25-26. We will rise again in the resurrection in the last day. It seems quite clear to me that we will not rise again (or be reincarnated) before that day. Read 1 Tess 4:13-18 also, these verses support the idea that death is like sleep - in other words: no reincarnation. We can continue to 1 Cor 15:22-23. These verses clearly states that when we die, we will stay dead until the day when Jesus returns. We shall not be made alive again before Jesus returns. > In the case of Heb 9:27, I would say that if Paul was referring to physical > death (rather than spiritual death), then he was mistaken. "Just as man is destined to die once and after that to face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people;" (Heb 9:27-28) You are stating that the bible is wrong with regards to these verses. Be careful, you are on very thin ice here. Jesus Christ was sacrificed once - he died physically once. Likewise, we will die *physically once*, and then face judgement. In these verses the bible is very clear - reincarnation is definitely not biblical. I would like you to state your interpretation of this verse. > Once again, I have to ask you then, what is your own interpretation of > the cited passage (Matt 24:34)? "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulflled." (Matt 24:34) I read my norwegian translation of the bible (1988-version), and it does not say "generasjon" which is the norwegian word for "generation". Instead it says "Slekt" - or "family/age/relatives/race" in english (some of these I believe can also be translated to "generation"). I do not have a concordance at hand, so I do not know what is the most accurate translation from the original texts. So, my interpretation of this verse must be that mankind (as we know it) will not cease to exist before Jesus returns at the end of this age. If anybody has any comments on this, I would like to know. >>> Too, the words of Paul, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." >>> (Gal 6:7) express the knowledge of the Law of Sowing and Reaping, which >>> is often carried out over the course of several earth lives. >> You don't need several earth lives to verify this verse, it can >> easily be done during one earth-life (or even in one day). The >> idea of reincarnation and karma comes from Greek philosophers like >> Plato, and from "mystical" religions like Hinduism, New Age etc. >> It does not come from the bible. > Although there well may be cases of sowing and reaping being carried out > even instantaneously, I think there are also countless cases where it occurs > over the course one or more earth lives. The Konnersreuth case of the > stigmatism of Therese Neumann being one obvious example. You cited Gal 6:7 in an earlier posting, I would really like to know how you support reincarnation using that verse. Again, I think you are reading far more out of the text than was intended. I do not know the Konnersreuth case, so I am unable to make any comments on this. > We all know of the saying, "The mills of God grind slowly, but they > grind exceedingly fine!", but what is the meaning of it? > The meaning is that sowing and reaping is not necessarily fulfilled > within the limited time frame overseen by human beings in a single > earth life, but it is always fulfilled just the same. In other words: The sacrifice Jesus made on the cross was not enough. We also have to keep going through life after life until we are perfect enough for God. What about Luke 23:43 where Jesus forgives the sins of a man who was sentenced to death ? Would that man have to come back and live more lives until he had made up for his sins ? What about all the other cases where Jesus forgave sins ? No - I do not believe in reincarnation. I believe that Jesus made a perfect sacrifice at the cross. It is necessary and sufficient for salvation. Nothing we ever do can make up for our sins - our only hope for salvation is Jesus Christ. We cannot save ourselves. > And just because other peoples in other places and times already knew > about reincarnation and sowing and reaping (karma) does not mean that > these ideas are wrong. What would be the sense of claiming that? > Gold is gold, whether a prince or a pauper holds it in his hands! I have never said that the idea of sowing and reaping was wrong - quite the opposite. If I decide to break the left arm of any of my friends, I will have to face the consequences (he/she wouldn't like it). It doesn't have anything to do with reincarnation. >> I think the rejection of reincarnation is very legitimate. The >> bible tells us that we will die only once (that is - before the >> final judgement). Keep in mind that the bible talks about a >> first death, and a second death. There is no third, fourth >> or fifth death. > Once again, past teachings gave mankind that which was most appropriate > for his level of spiritual development *at that time*. Today we are in > the position to understand far more about the Creation in which we live. > And in fact we seriously *need* to do so. Science has certainly changed a lot in 2000 years, but I do not think there is a great difference in "spiritual development". The biggest change - in my opinion - is a synchretic (I think that is the english word for it) tendency. People mix different religions so they can believe what they want to believe. > Once again, I believe that Jesus Himself must have spoken about sowing > and reaping, and this is why it is also stated by Paul. If some want to > call sowing and reaping by the name karma, I have no problem with that. > It's not "new age" -- it's there in the Bible. It's just that we haven't > troubled ourselves to learn more about it hitherto. I am just as sure as you that Jesus spoke about sowing and reaping. But just to make sure we understand each other. When I talk about karma, I mean the combination of reincarnation and sowing and reaping - not sowing and reaping alone. I do not think Jesus supported the idea of karma. > The love and the grace of God exist to be quite sure, but they in no > way cancel or negate the need to fulfill His Laws and His Justice. > Love and justice cannot be separated, they are ultimately one. We certainly must try to do our best to do Gods will. But knowing that our best will never be good enough, I am glad that it is the grace of God and not our deeds that save us. I would like your interpreatation of the following bible-verse. In my opinion, it seems to contradict the idea of reincarnation. Acts 2:24 (Death could not hold Jesus. Doesn't this imply that death can hold all others? Yes, we are talking about physical death.) We clearly have disagreements, but I hope we can avoid starting a flamewar. If I have been rude, it was never my intention. Keep in mind that I usually communicate in norwegian and not in english. (In other words - there is a possibility that we might misunderstand each other). I will be going away for some time now, so I would be very glad if any responses to this was also directly emailed to me (both from you Mark, and from any others). God Bless You. -Torbjoern- -- ----- Torbjorn Bakke (Research Assistant) Internet: torbakke@idt.unit.no Div. of Computer Systems & Telematics torbakke@solan.unit.no Norwegian Institute of Technology
iwilliam@au.oracle.com (Ian Williams) (06/27/91)
:Just a point of correction: The Roman Catholic church has _not_ :renounce the concept of purgatory--it is still part of our world :view. There have been some peripheral changes--penalties gained :and remitted in purgatory for venial sins or acts of piety are :not longer counted with the precision of a bank auditor. But :the concept of a place or state of preparation antecedent to :heaven is still alive and strong. Purgatory in no way can be :used to justify re-incarnation though--it's better to think of :it as the cloakroom of heaven :-). :David Cruz-Uribe, SFO May I respectfully ask where in the Bible a reference to purgatory is made?? -- ----------------------+----------------------------------+------------------- Ian Williams <>< | Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com |I don't speak for Oracle Systems | Phone : +61 8 239 3900 |them, and they don't Adelaide, Australia | |speak for me.. [A few months ago I went through the gospels pretty carefully looking for descriptions of reward and punishment, hell, etc. I was surprised at the number of things Jesus said that implied something other than a binary heaven/hell outcome. He often talks about it being worse for X than for inhabitants of Y, and other things that imply degrees of punishment. It could be that these passages are all about people who end up in hell, but it's not so clear to me. And of course Christ refers to things like being first (or last) in the kingdom of heaven, etc. Then there's I Cor 3:12ff, which talks about reward and punishment for people who are saved. None of this is explicitly the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Certainly the heavenly beancounter aspect that David referred to seems quite foreign to NT thought. But the simple binary approach may be too simple. As many of you know, I have the sneaking suspicion that God has something up his sleeve that will surprised all of us equally. --clh]
carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.22.01.31.08.1991.7113@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <Jun.13.23.34.11.1991.15947@athos.rutgers.edu> ejprosser@ucdavis.edu (Eric J. Prosser) writes: > [Read the Bible...] > And don't go reading books written by man first! Read the Bible, maybe > the entire book you quoted from, and find out what Jesus was really talking > about. >As if the Bible wasn't written by men (and women, if many currently >popular opinions about Ruth and the Song of Songs are correct). Not to mention a pretty good chunk of the Torah? (check out "The Book of J" at your friendly neighborhood bookstore or, if you're lucky, library.) -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com