[Thomas1970]

Glad to be a part of this thread!

Thomas... I've been discussing this a bit with a Buddhist friend. It seems to me that the main difference between my perspective and the majority Buddhist view (he informed me that there are several variations) is that I can't believe there's no individual self. I'm not speaking about a conceptually constructed or 'conditioned' self, which I agree is, for the most part, a convenient construct. I feel that when we strip down the layers of persona etc., there remains an essential individuality. Like a core, a seed or a spark. (You rightly say that words cannot fully describe it).

I can certainly accept and appreciate that view. There are indeed several variations, though not all are widely regarded as wholly authentic to the Buddha's original teachings. Though this is largely why Buddhism distinguishes between relative and ultimately reality. Certain "illusions" are necessarily accepted in order to relate and function meaningfully in the world. The concept of self is one of these. It is said there is no birth and no death, but one would still be a fool to step in front of a moving bus. :) This view is simply in accordance with the scientific law that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed." If you were to be hit by a bus, it is likely conditions would no longer be sufficient to support "you," but every molecule in your body lives on to become an integral part of many other things. In this sense, nothing is ever truly "individual," and nothing ever truly dies. Things just change form. The Buddhist teachings in no way trivialize the preciousness and uniqueness of every life and form. :)

[earthpages]

though not all are widely regarded as wholly authentic to the Buddha's original teachings.

With all due respect, I find it interesting that when people speak of Buddha's original teachings they often overlook the fact that Buddha himself didn't write any scriptures. I've heard that Buddhist scriptures were written 300-600 years after the death of Buddha. If this is right, then the time lag is much longer than that of Christ and the New Testament writings. Yet Christianity seems to get a bum rap for this far more than Buddhism.

Why?

Anyone have any ideas? ;)

[Thomas1970]

Well, again, with all due respect, I do not overlook this fact, but rely, as all Buddhists do, on the Three Dharma Seals to denote authentic teachings. It is said that all Buddha's teachings contained three hallmarks: no-self, impermanence and nirvana. If any of these can not be found, it is not considered an authentic teaching.
You are correct again. Buddha only gave oral sermons, passing knowledge down orally as was common in those days. But perhaps, as well, he didn't wish to over-emphasize the importance of his words, as they are often referred to as nothing more than "skillful means"; a boat to ferry you across to the far shore, to be abandoned when the ultimate "destination" is reached.
There are in fact two separate cannons of Buddhist teachings, the Northern and Southern Transmissions, one in Sanskrit, the other in Pali. These teachings were collected from many dedicated followers, though one bhikku (monk) is traditionally considered responsible for much of what we have. It is accepted that many of his teachings may have been lost.

Though I'm certainly not the one to answer authoritatively for the Christian perspective, perhaps it is a lack of commonly accepted keys of verification. Another factor is perhaps the unflinching stance that many take in interpreting the Bible. Buddha never advocated taking his words at face value; he always encouraged followers to test his words, and see if they held up as true for them. Neither did he ever advocate giving up one's original faith or beliefs. He understood that true growth was difficult without strong roots.
Though I think the most important factor is that many see it as a one shot deal. Though hell realms exist in Buddhist teachings, there is always a chance for salvation in every single moment. Who doesn't want to be sure when eternity is on the line.
Faced with these intimidating prospects, some people just give up. Like a child hiding under the sheets from the monster in the closet, some people feel if they ignore reality long enough, it will simply go away. :)

[galveston]

Come on you Guys! Why twist the Apostle Paul's words all around? You want to know about the resurrected body? After His resurrection, Jesus walked into a locked and barred room. Then He ate some food to show that He wasn't spirit, but "flesh and bone". Is that really so difficult to understand? John, who wrote the book "Revelation" saw Him in in His glorified state. And His form was still human in shape. You are making something that is straightforward (resurrection) into a mess of your own thinking.

[Morganite]

We have to remember that the earliest versions of the Bible were mostly written in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). So not only do we have the translation problem. We also have to think about copyists possibly adding stuff through the ages (last I heard, monks and scribes didn't have xerox machines or scanners back then!). Actually, in all seriousness, Biblical scholars call this "gloss."

~gloss : a commentary on, or sometimes a translation of, a manuscript work written between the lines or around the margins of the main text

Source: http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/glossary.htm

A Catholic Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans) says that gloss may be incorporated in the text.

Although this is way off thread [reincarnation] I would like to squash the nascent idea that Hebrew copyists didn't make mistakes, but if they did (!) they hid their errors in a gematria. The demonstrable fact is that the copyists made many errors, most of which are readily visible to those sufficiently familiar with the Bible (even in English) to stand out like pikestaffs. There are a whole series of different kinds of errors that were commonly made, and in addition thereis no doubt that glosses have been copied into the body of text instead of leaving them as marginal explanations. The first to note the textual errors was a mediaeval rabbi.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to start a fresh thread. The original texts were either written in Hebrew or Aramaic (OT), or in Koine Greek (NT). Modern linguistic science finds it useful to retranslate them back into the opriginal languages and look for loan words from neighbour languages such as Ethiopic, etc, and treat some difficulties successfully by their methods.

The major proplem of honestly dealing with the Bible documents comes from those who stand outside the Bible itself and make the unbiblical statement that "the Bible is entirely free from errors!" it is not, neither does it claim to be inerrant.

M:)

Come on you Guys! Why twist the Apostle Paul's words all around? You want to know about the resurrected body? After His resurrection, Jesus walked into a locked and barred room. Then He ate some food to show that He wasn't spirit, but "flesh and bone". Is that really so difficult to understand? John, who wrote the book "Revelation" saw Him in in His glorified state. and His form was still human in shape. You are making something that is straightforward (resurrection) into a mess of your own thinking.

You are absolutely right. Those who disagree are making a mockery of the resurrection of Jesus by insisting that it was a spiritual ecvent and not a literal historic event, as Christianity has long taught.

Jesus himself said, "Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." I have always been inclined to trust anything Jesus said. The resurrected Jesus appeared to paul no less than six times. He appeared to john on Patmos, and John described his appearance. He is not describing a diaphanous, formless, mass of spirit substance, but the risen Lord himself standing before him.

That is what the Bible teaches about resurrection.



M:)

I don't know. Some say that the mysteriousness and ambiguity give it credibility. I mean, if the Church leaders really wanted to fake it, they'd have just ironed out all the difficulties. The Bible is full of difficult stuff.

It is indeed. That is half the enjoyment of biblical studies. There are puzzles to be resolved.


M:)

Reincarnation is an offense to the Lord. It's like saying He didn't get it right the first time. Are you a Hindu or Budist. There is only one God & there is only one true religion. Through the Son one gets to the Father. I felt my mother's presence too...in a willow tree, but that's bc she does live up there & she loved the weeping willow tree. Our loved ones do witness our lives..they are witnesses...it's in the Bible

I doubt very much that the Lord is offended when his children get things wrong. There are too many people presuming to speak for the Lord and putting their words into his mouth. I need hardly remind anyone that it was the Lord that said he came to save the sick, and not the well. Mor eoffensive ot the Lord is his characterisation as a bad tempered eastern potentate who cannot be gainsaid without lopping of the head of the poor fellow who get it wrong.

Let's put God back together again as he is and not as he has been made to appear by the Ferrovians.



M:)RGANITE

[Sunshine4U]

I am Hindu so I cannot comment on whether it was ever promoted in Christianity. However I feel that we are reincarnated, as it is my faith, but it also makes a lot of sense. People often ask ' if God Created us then how can He will us to damn ourselves to hell' I know Xtianity uses the concept of free will in order to answer this question. In my opinion reincarnation makes more sense, there is so much in this world the experience and why shouldn't one get more than one chance to get it right?

[Lianne20]

I believe that everyone has the right to believe in what they want. I don't personally believe in reincarnation, or God, or Jesus. And I don't believe that the bible is proof of anything at all. Its sad, because I don't think that there is anything after death. Which is why I'm trying to live my life to the full, as there will always be one chance, and one chance only.
What about dinosaurs? There's proof that they inhabited the earth before humans, bones have been found to verify this. But the bible does not mention this anywhere! To me its all a load of old rubbish. Its like saying the tooth fairy is real! But who am I to judge! People have every right to have their own beliefs and that's great :-)

[Morganite]

I believe that everyone has the right to believe in what they want. I don't personally believe in reincarnation, or God, or Jesus. And I don't believe that the bible is proof of anything at all. Its sad, because I don't think that there is anything after death. Which is why I'm trying to live my life to the full, as there will always be one chance, and one chance only.
What about dinosaurs?? There's proof that they inhabited the earth before humans, bones have been found to verify this. But the bible does not mention this anywhere! To me its all a load of old rubbish. Its like saying the tooth fairy is real! But who am I to judge! People have every right to have their own beliefs and that's great :-)

There are a great manythings that are bnot mentioned in the Bible. That is because people write of things of which they have experience. As dinosaurs, largely, lived and became extinct before humanity appeared you should not wonder that they are not mentioned. Of course, it is eqaully correct to say that penguins are not mentioned in the Bible, but that does not mean that there weren't any. You might be surprised to learn that my personal journals do not document the sinking of the Titanic.

The Bible is not a chronicle of the complete history of the world, nor is it a scientific treatise, nor is it an astronomical textbook. In fact, the Bible is not a great many things, but that does not mean that is is nothing at all or that it is it is without any value. Millions upon millions of people whose lives have been informed and directed by its contents are convincing and irerefutable proof that it has great, even exceptional value.

That you apparently choose not to believe a word of it does not diminish what the Bible IS, while many Bible believers including myself will heartiily agree with you in regard to many categories of what it IS NOT. One should be ultra-cautious not to forcibly eject the infant with the polluted ablutionary liquid. Equally, one should not set the Bible up as a straw man so as to easily destroy it. Like any other book, the Bible needs to be seen for what it is. When this is done, there remains little about which to object.

The saddest thing of all is that you do not believe in the Tooth Fairy! If the Tooth Fairy isn't real who puts the money under my pillow?

M:)RGANITE - (toothless, but rich!)

[Morganite]

Wow, how do I write this answer with out looking like a total idiot?


I was raised by my grandparent basically. They believed in not one God but all gods. They believed that your body was a vessel for your sole. If you completed your mission in life, you pasted on, to the next body and then the next continuing in time. If you did not well let say it was not a nice place to go. Their heaven was not what the bible said, their heaven was to go on an on and on. I think on this often, my grand father loved to talk about life and simple things. He had one goal in life other than taking care of his family it was to be nice to every one he met even it they seemed to be the worst person on earth. I have read the bible but do not completely understand it as do some of the fine people here do. I do believe in god, and when thing are at there lowest point I can go to church any church any religion and feel comforted. Do I believe in reincarnation YES, I have no proof to back me up, but there are times, I feel my grand parents. It may sound stupid but they loved to be outdoors in nature. I can sit in the wood or go for a walk and truly feel him. Is he there somewhere? I don’t know, but I think he is.

If you are not familiar with the poetry of William Wordsworth, I recommend you read him, as he also experienced the divine in nature.

LINES COMPOSED A FEW MILES ABOVE TINTERN ABBEY, ON REVISITING THE BANKS OF THE WYE DURING A TOUR. JULY 13, 1798

Wordsworth writes: "No poem of mine was composed under circumstances more pleasant for me to remember than this. I began it upon leaving Tintern, after crossing the Wye, and concluded it just as I was entering Bristol in the evening, after a ramble of four or five days, with my Sister. Not a line of it was altered, and not any part of it written down till I reached Bristol. It was published almost immediately after in the little volume of which so much has been said in these Notes."--(The Lyrical Ballads, as first published at Bristol by Cottle.)

FIVE years have past; five summers, with the length
Of five long winters! and again I hear
These waters, rolling from their mountain-springs
With a soft inland murmur.--Once again
Do I behold these steep and lofty cliffs,
That on a wild secluded scene impress
Thoughts of more deep seclusion; and connect
The landscape with the quiet of the sky.

The day is come when I again repose
Here, under this dark sycamore, and view
These plots of cottage-ground, these orchard-tufts,
Which at this season, with their unripe fruits,
Are clad in one green hue, and lose themselves
'Mid groves and copses. Once again I see
These hedge-rows, hardly hedge-rows, little lines
Of sportive wood run wild: these pastoral farms,
Green to the very door; and wreaths of smoke
Sent up, in silence, from among the trees!

With some uncertain notice, as might seem
Of vagrant dwellers in the houseless woods,
Or of some Hermit's cave, where by his fire
The Hermit sits alone.

These beauteous forms,
Through a long absence, have not been to me
As is a landscape to a blind man's eye:
But oft, in lonely rooms, and 'mid the din
Of towns and cities, I have owed to them
In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,
Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;
And passing even into my purer mind,
With tranquil restoration:--feelings too
Of unremembered pleasure: such, perhaps,
As have no slight or trivial influence
On that best portion of a good man's life,
His little, nameless, unremembered, acts
Of kindness and of love. Nor less, I trust,
To them I may have owed another gift,
Of aspect more sublime; that blessed mood,
In which the burthen of the mystery,
In which the heavy and the weary weight
Of all this unintelligible world,
Is lightened:--that serene and blessed mood,
In which the affections gently lead us on,--
Until, the breath of this corporeal frame
And even the motion of our human blood
Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
In body, and become a living soul:

While with an eye made quiet by the power
Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,
We see into the life of things.
If this
Be but a vain belief, yet, oh! how oft--
In darkness and amid the many shapes
Of joyless daylight; when the fretful stir
Unprofitable, and the fever of the world,
Have hung upon the beatings of my heart--

How oft, in spirit, have I turned to thee,
O sylvan Wye! thou wanderer thro' the woods,
How often has my spirit turned to thee!

And now, with gleams of half-extinguished thought,
With many recognitions dim and faint,
And somewhat of a sad perplexity,
The picture of the mind revives again:
While here I stand, not only with the sense
Of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts
That in this moment there is life and food
For future years. And so I dare to hope,
Though changed, no doubt, from what I was when first
I came among these hills; when like a roe
I bounded o'er the mountains, by the sides
Of the deep rivers, and the lonely streams,
Wherever nature led: more like a man
Flying from something that he dreads, than one
Who sought the thing he loved.

For nature then
(The coarser pleasures of my boyish days,
And their glad animal movements all gone by)
To me was all in all.--I cannot paint
What then I was.

The sounding cataract
Haunted me like a passion: the tall rock,
The mountain, and the deep and gloomy wood,
Their colours and their forms, were then to me
An appetite; a feeling and a love,
That had no need of a remoter charm,
By thought supplied, nor any interest
Unborrowed from the eye.--

That time is past,
And all its aching joys are now no more,
And all its dizzy raptures. Not for this
Faint I, nor mourn nor murmur, other gifts
Have followed; for such loss, I would believe,
Abundant recompence.

For I have learned
To look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue. And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.

Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods,
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth; of all the mighty world
Of eye, and ear,--both what they half create,
And what perceive; well pleased to recognise
In nature and the language of the sense,
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul
Of all my moral being.

Nor perchance,
If I were not thus taught, should I the more
Suffer my genial spirits to decay:
For thou art with me here upon the banks
Of this fair river; thou my dearest Friend,
My dear, dear Friend; and in thy voice I catch
The language of my former heart, and read
My former pleasures in the shooting lights
Of thy wild eyes.

Oh! yet a little while
May I behold in thee what I was once,
My dear, dear Sister! and this prayer I make,
Knowing that Nature never did betray
The heart that loved her; 'tis her privilege,
Through all the years of this our life, to lead
From joy to joy: for she can so inform
The mind that is within us, so impress
With quietness and beauty, and so feed
With lofty thoughts, that neither evil tongues,
Rash judgments, nor the sneers of selfish men,
Nor greetings where no kindness is, nor all
The dreary intercourse of daily life,
Shall e'er prevail against us, or disturb
Our cheerful faith, that all which we behold
Is full of blessings.

Therefore let the moon
Shine on thee in thy solitary walk;
And let the misty mountain-winds be free
To blow against thee: and, in after years,
When these wild ecstasies shall be matured
Into a sober pleasure; when thy mind
Shall be a mansion for all lovely forms,
Thy memory be as a dwelling-place
For all sweet sounds and harmonies; oh! then,
If solitude, or fear, or pain, or grief,
Should be thy portion, with what healing thoughts
Of tender joy wilt thou remember me,
And these my exhortations!

Nor, perchance--
If I should be where I no more can hear
Thy voice, nor catch from thy wild eyes these gleams
Of past existence--wilt thou then forget
That on the banks of this delightful stream
We stood together; and that I, so long
A worshipper of Nature, hither came
Unwearied in that service: rather say
With warmer love--oh! with far deeper zeal
Of holier love.

Nor wilt thou then forget,
That after many wanderings, many years
Of absence, these steep woods and lofty cliffs,
And this green pastoral landscape, were to me
More dear, both for themselves and for thy sake!



M:)

[NeedKarma]

If the Tooth Fairy isn't real who puts the money under my pillow?

The Tooth Fairy is that lie your parents told you until you were old enough to figure things out for yourself.

:)

[Morganite]

OK. If I'm readingeth this right, his holiness starts off by calling me a fool for asking the question. He then describes the flesh, the body and the glory as making up all things. (Hermetisists and alchemists use similar words.) But before that, indicating that all share the seed of God's body. That is a truly pagan idea that the 'flesh' of all thing, even the celestial bodies is of the matter of God. He than sadly chooses the words corruption, dishonor and weakness to equate to the natural body. A real wondrous, miracle of God's creation if you ask me. And it sounds like, he believes, that what is resurrected, is in no way physical or natural, but entirely spirit.

Paul was not speaking either to or about you. He was addressing Christians who taught false doctrine in his own time at Corinth.


M:)

The Tooth Fairy is that lie your parents told you until you were old enough to figure things out for yourself.

:)

I don't have parents but the cash still comes in gold pieces!

What now?

M:confused:ORGANITE

[NeedKarma]

I don't have parents but the cash still comes in gold pieces!

What now?

M:confused:ORGANITE

You lie?

[31pumpkin]

Another reason why I don't believe in reincarnation is because in the Bible, God tells us that we are not responsible for the previous generations' sins.
And also it IS an offense to the Lord- that He didn't get it right the 1st time - came from a Christian author, when asked about reincarnation.

[galveston]

Since so many have explained re-incarnation (or attempted to), I want to ask a question of those who believe in it. What evidence can you give in this 21st century that there is any truth whatsoever in the idea of re-incarnation? Don't quote your book, as I insist that the same standards by which you refuse to believe the Bible are applicable to your sacred writings. Can you prove that you have been re-incarnated? Do you know anyone who can? How do you know that it is not just a huge deception? You owe it to yourself to ask these hard questions, as you have so much to lose if you are wrong.

[Morganite]

Since so many have explained re-incarnation (or attempted to), I want to ask a question of those who believe in it. What evidence can you give in this 21st century that there is any truth whatsoever in the idea of re-incarnation? Don't quote your book, as I insist that the same standards by which you refuse to believe the Bible are applicable to your sacred writings. Can you prove that you have been re-incarnated? Do you know anyone who can? How do you know that it is not just a huge deception? You owe it to yourself to ask these hard questions, as you have so much to lose if you are wrong.

It makes no sense to ask people to furnish 'proof' of theitr beliefs, because most faith positions are not available to evidence/proof, any more than you can 'prove' any item of belief in your own religion.

Perhaps you should lead the way in this exercise in futility by 'proving' that they have not been reincarnated. It is just as possible as what you demand of them.

I do not believe in reincarnation. Some folks do. I hope they are as happy in their belief as I am in mine. Neither my God, my religion or my Bible require me to go after those who do not believe as I do, but all enjoin me to live in peace with the rest of God's children and not to demand their conformity to my faith perspective as the price of my love and respect.

Jesus Christ died for all people whatever their faith.

M:)RGANITE

You lie?

You signal the end of civilisation! Unhand me, varlet!


I sense bad karmic vibes from you, Brrrrrrrr!!


M:(

[talaniman]

It makes no sense to ask people to furnish 'proof' of theitr beliefs, because most faith positions are not available to evidence/proof, any more than you can 'prove' any item of belief in your own religion.

Perhaps you should lead the way in this exercise in futility by 'proving' that they have not been reincarnated. It is just as possible as what you demand of them.

I do not believe in reincarnation. Some folks do. I hope they are as happy in their belief as I am in mine. Neither my God, my religion or my Bible require me to go after those who do not believe as I do, but all enjoin me to live in peace with the rest of God's children and not to demand their conformity to my faith perspective as the price of my love and respect.

Jesus Christ died for all people whatever their faith.

M:)RGANITE





You signal the end of civilisation! Unhand me, varlet!


I sense bad karmic vibes from you, Brrrrrrrr!!


M:(

Now that's the kind of idea and attitude I can appreciate.

[Morganite]

This stirred up so much anger in another website that I am on, answerway.com

What do you think about reincarnation. Do you believe in the possibilities that reincarnation exists and was taught in the earlier christian churches?

Thank you in advance!

Joe

In all the early Christian texts and documents, including those considered by some to be heretical in nature, I have found nothing I have been able to construe as even hinting at reincarnation, where the soul or spirit of the deceased enters a newborn and lives again as a new and separate person. There is nothing in the Bible nor in the teachings of inspired Christian leaders after the NT periond that provides a foundation for belief in reincarnation, and it is strange that any Christian would believe in it as it is utterly foreign to every principle revealed in scripture that addresses the progress of the soul.

M:)

[miss manson]

This stirred up so much anger in another website that I am on, answerway.com

What do you think about reincarnation. Do you believe in the possibilities that reincarnation exists and was taught in the earlier christian churches?

Thank you in advance!

Joe

I do believe in reincarnation. I don't understand it fully, but I absolutley do believe we come back many, many times. X

[Morganite]

I do beleive in reincarnation. I dont understand it fully, but i absolutley do beleive we come back many, many times. x

As an unbeliever in reincarnation I'd appreciate if you could explain why you are a believer. Is it more than hopeing for the survival of the personality, or the hope that death does not extinguish us? Do you feel able to share your reasons?

M:)

[galveston]

I have asked any and all for some proof of reincarnaton, yet none of you asks me if I can supply any proof of the truth of Jesus Christ. Why not? The truth of Jesus Christ has always been, is now, verifiable by observation to all who are interested.