 |
Not sure what you are meaning by this statement. If you are trying to say that Christianity lends itself to the only proven reincarnation which was Jesus, then you should realize that Jesus was not reincarnated.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
And I would have to say that "under his own power" is very borderline. This was by the power of the Lord, thy God... not Jesus the Man.
Thomas1970 -
I think you know how I feel. I don't worship the wind. Or Buddha. Dead mute idol. But your all right anyway. It's a peaceful religion. But I have true peace too PLUS I have the promise of eternity spoken by Jesus and the Apostles. :)
As deep calls unto deep... God speaks to" us" through His Holy Spirit. Which He instilled in us when we received Jesus Christ as our Lord. :rolleyes:
Just a thought-Could it be we are all caught up in semantics and we all are saying the same thing?
By 31pumpkin-
They worship from the same bible as all christians do, now I'm confuse, are methodist a cult? Baptist? Will the real christians please stand up.Quote:
We are so not like J.W.'s! My pastor says they're a cult. Anyway, I can't take them coming door-to-door either! The Watchtower, oh no! :eek:
Sorry a little off topic.
Talaniman -
Here's some of the list:
Mormons (use actually a bible that differs)
J.W. - don't remember why exactly- would have to look it up.
Kaballah
Scientology
Moon's Unification Church
Actually, don't Mormons follow the same Bible but they also adhere to the lost books that Joseph Smith found in the 1800s?
I think the Mormon Bible has too many differences in it compared to the regular Christian Bible. I haven't looked at the subject in a while, but I think that's why.
Hi Orange. Thank you very much. I very much enjoy your thoughtful and insightful posts as well.
Hi 31pumpkin. Thanks. I believe I do know how you feel, and I do respect such. My beliefs also offer me the promise of eternity. And like yours, I am in theory given a choice as to how I would like to spend it. Christianity offers salvation or damnation; Buddhism, liberation or perpetual corporeal existence. Though not quite damnation, there is generally considered to entail quite a bit of suffering inherent to the first of the latter of these two choices. Ultimately though, I personally don't feel they are really all that different, the two views.
In one final note, there is an old, yet irreverently humorous Zen saying, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!"... because the icon or concept is not the true Buddha. The true Buddha is the shared potential we all possess, the divine and the peace within all of us. In that sense he is always very much alive. Our most cherished concepts are often the final obstacle to our fully knowing true peace. Prince Siddartha (Gautama Buddha) was born and died a man as all mortals humans do. But in that time he came to a brilliant discovery that led to the end of all his woes and sufferings. It is this he generously shared out of his love for humanity and all creation. Buddha never asked any man to kneel at his feet in idolatry. Though it is often customary in India to kneel and place one's hands on the feet of a person of truly lofty status or an highly enlightened teacher, a sign of utmost respect, Buddha was known to often practically pull even the poorest man up by the elbow. He abhorred extremes, he abhorred inequality, and ultimately, he would have none of it. Both royal prince and highly realized individual or not. Buddhists pay respect to Buddha for the gifts he has given the world, in much the same way as hopefully they respect all life. Everyone has given us a great deal in order for us to be here at this moment, and hopefully there is more we can continue to learn from and share with others on our own individual journeys.
I see a lot of comments everywhere about who is right, who is the chosen, and who has a leg up on the figurative stairway to Heaven. I've never felt this was or is the highest potential or purpose of any religion. Particularly to question the devoutness or sanctity of a person of any Jewish sect, is literally tantamount to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", or "biting the hand that feeds." If it were not for the love and generosity of the Jewish people, Christians likely may never have had a written account of the Old Testament, perhaps even Jesus himself, depending on your indivual beliefs. It's truly time to give credit and respect where it is duly due.
On the topic of what defines a cult, I believe there is a hallmark divisiveness inherent to all such systems of belief. Though not every religious sect who aggresively disseminates their beliefs should necessarily be defined as a cult, cults do rely on certain undermining tactics, reinforcing certain doubts and insecurities, and above all, demanding an often total degree of social and familial isolation. Most cults demand that their followers sever most if not all ties to their "former" way of life, and any of an individual's relations who do not fairly strictly adhere to their own, often narrow doctrines. Isolation is typically the key factor. It is initially employed to instill a degree of malleability in the cognitive mind -- much the way a Buddhist would engage in a group or solitary retreat -- but for untimately antithetical and far less benevolent purposes. Uncertainty and unfamiliarity coupled with a degree of deprivation. It is this potentially revelatory gap created, that is ultimately dogmatically refilled. After the initial period of isolation, once doubts have been deeply seeded, conditioning and indoctrination begin. "We can fulfill all your needs. No need to look elsewhere." "No one will ever love you the way we do." It is an artificially fostered state of utmost dependence. But no one person, or even group of people, or earthly thing can ever truly fulfill all our needs. As with all earthly phenomena, there is always a subtle gap between expectation and satisfaction that can never really be spanned. Ultimately these are some of the same psychological dynamics exhibited in any abusive relationship. Like the famous behavioral study of Pavlov's dog, it is a classic case of conditioning. Ring the bell and the dog will continue to salivate, against his better will, even when the meat is no longer delivered. People, like dogs, are creatures of habit and comfort. It is inherent to our natures, and there will always be those who will seek to exploit such characteristics for the sole gratification of their own ego. Religion is simply a powerful guise that many unfortunately choose to use. True religions absolve us of many of our fears and discomforts, never should they unskilfully instill them. True religion is as well, never used for divisive purposes.
I myself have had varying degrees of interaction with many denominations, including the Jehovah's Winesses, the "Moonies" and the Boston Church of Christ. A good Christian friend of mine, raised in a very traditional Jewish family, was once forcefully evicted from BCoC services in my witnessing presence, for attempting to congenially argue what he felt was the greater accuracy of his own preferred Bible, the King James version. He bemusedly takes a certain bit of pride in having been evicted from no less than three churches.
If you were to ask me personally, I feel it is, to a greater or lesser degree, on many if not all levels, an absurd waste of time to argue whose Bible possesses the greatest historical accuracy, as well as to argue who will ultimately be saved and who will not. To do either, is to greatly demean both a great gift, as well as a truly altruistic sacrifice. To say Jesus died for the sole purpose of saving but a small fraction of the world's population, seems to me to greatly demean or belittle the tremendous suffering he endured on all our behalfs. The best way to honor his sacrifice is to attempt to love everyone in much the same way that he did.
As well, to say that God will convey his wrath upon those of his children that would perhaps follow a slightly more winding and meandering path to salvation, is to instill upon what I feel is essentially gloriously unbounded and largely indefinable, perhaps the grossest of worldly restrictions, the ego. As well as the most basest manifestations of such ego. Even as a Buddhist follower, I have always believed God is infinitely well above the worst of human traits. We must remember that, to all those but the most devout atheists, we were made in His image, he was not made in ours. People often also lose sight of the fact that the journey can be both as rewarding and important as the destination. And the company we travel with is everything.
Like any good parent, we hopefully don't stop loving our children because they don't grow up to fulfill every one of our myriad expectations, and all our own unrealized dreams, as seldom they do. We continue to love them because they are unique, we want them to be happy, and ultimately, the more they disappoint us, the more we stand to learn from them, truly great teachers that they are. I believe this patience and forbearance is the essence of a loving, forgiving, and ultimately nondiscriminatory God.
Perhaps Jesus was not reincarnated in the strictest traditional sense. Buddhism teaches the theory that every enlightened being possesses three "kayas" or bodies, the Dharmakaya, the Sambhogakaya, and the Nirmanakaya. It is the latter of these three, the Nirmanakaya, the physical manifestation that enlightened beings employ to interact with mortal beings in order to help bring about their liberation. This theory of three bodies was shared by ancient Egyptians in a remarkably similar form. Perhaps something similar had occurred here. It is not really my inadequately educated place to speculate on such things further, but it does add some interesting food for thought.
Concluding, there is a known saying somewhere in the Jewish teachings, and perhaps Orange or someone can further elucidate or correct me, something to the effect of, "To take the life of one man, is to annhilate a universe." I believe all good religions share this belief. All life is of equal value and importance, an integral thread in the colorful tapestry of existence, and any time we attempt to exclude anyone from community or salvation, we never really know what we are depriving ourselves or others of, or just how many we are depriving. I think one of the greatest lessons we can learn in life is to agree to peaceably disagree. Life would be darn boring without diversity. :)
I agree. I find it easier to just be respectful of everyone's religious beliefs. Which means I state my beliefs but don't really challenge anyone else's directly. I can pretty much assume that if someone is interested in how I arrived at my beliefs, they will ask me.Quote:
NeedKarma: Exchanging ideas is indeed the goal. Telling someone they should become like you with the 'correct information' verges on trying to convert.
Amongst many of my friends (who are very diverse in their religious beliefs - holy cow!) we talk to the principle of things, the ideas and concepts, etc, without ever ever implying someone is wrong to believe any one thing... to do so would be considered disrespectful. It tends to eliminate any of us commenting on other religions which we know little about. It tends to prevent "My dog's better than your dog" type debate, which is a form of competition.
If someone comes along who doesn't know better and is sort of wild in their approach, they soon feel out of place when the rest of us won't engage them in that manner and they either modify their behavior and stay or lose interest and leave. The hitch here in this forum is that someone always engages.
Religious tolerance for all the wonderous diversity out there allows for a much better discussion and my friends all recognise that and agree to maintain it. I think the same thing would work well here too. That is... if we could pull it off? There is a simple guide one can follow and that is just stick to "I" statements. Voilà!
And just so this is not so terribly off topic, I don't think it takes any reincarnations to see this and modify behaviors! LOL
I think reincarnation is possible. There are some highly spiritually evolved people on this planet. Why are some so evolved and great teachers and others still in kindergarten?
I can not believe when we die God will only allow Christians in heaven. There are so many truly good people on this planet and their heart and souls are filled with love. They do so much for mankind, even dedicate their lives to making life better for others. Some of these people are not Christians. They have certainly earned the right to go to heaven. I have seen someone go to church each Sunday and recite passages from the Bible and still be mean spirited.
I think we may have to come back here more than once to learn the lessons we are to learn in life before we go on further. Possibly it is the hope God gives more than one chance to make it.
Until I finish this lifetime I can only speculate. It is often scarey for some to think outside their box. I have a friend that starts shaking when I talk of reincarnation. HA.
I do not believe that being a "good and loving" person is enough to please the Lord, if one doesn't believe and have faith in Him. That person might be well loved by their family/friends in this life, but choosing to ignore God of the Bible will have its judgment. A mean-spirited Christian you mentioned, just as any mean individual, will have consequences for their actions in THIS life because God wants us to walk in love and get rid of such things like bitterness.
Jesus came and performed many miracles. We have a written account of some of just some of them.
The Bible dispels any ideas of reincarnation. Man is to die once. The prophet Elijah did not even taste death. He was taken up to Heaven in a whirlwind.(2Kings 2:11-12) HEAVEN, not swirled around by some cosmic energy principle back to earth to be someone else.
Lastly, Spirit-filled Christians, those walking in the Spirit (and whose will is led by the H.S.) may be called Pentecostal Christians - but that's just the name of a Church affiliation - anyway, we have a deep reverence for the Old Testament also. It is as important as the New T. but each incomplete without the other.
I only know Messianic Jews the last 2 decades since born-again. One friend I knew when we were both unsaved. Her whole family was a friend of my uncle(the pioneer ) Her sister is far more active in the church than all of us. But my friend sings in the music ministry. (I never knew she could sing!)
The other Messianic Jew is a deacon (I believe that's his title) He delivered
The sermon on the last Sunday before I was to move from Ft. Lauderdale.
It was awesome. He spoke a word from the Bible about "all things I am making
anew!" What a revelation! Good Lord, I could almost cry tears of joy. What an anointing he had! I felt not only the Lord speaking to me but the speaker was actually looking at me even with the 2 hundred people there. I believe a personal relationship with the Lord is the answer for anyone. The Lord gives direction to us through His Holy Spirit. In His word(the Bible) In prayer, and in our circumstances. The Lord brings many blessings and mercies to those who love Him and obey the commands He has established.
I know that no one here cares about me personally. I don't expect strangers to. My life goes deep, and then shallow. I don't expect any understanding from unbelievers, but I have some experiences where God show up and actually showed me things. But I don't think one needs to have dramatic life event changes to seek the Lord. I admire too those who believe because they grew up knowing Jesus.
Thanks y'all for your time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
That a belief in reincarnation should prevail among Christians seems strange for there is nothing in the Bible or in the teachings of the Church fathers that furnishes the least foundation for such a conception.
Reincarnation or the transmigration of souls -- the rebirth of the same spirits in new bodily forms in successive ages -- is a false doctrine that runs counter to the whole system and plan of God where eternal spirits are born in pre-existence are permitted to pass through a mortalilty, and then in due course be resurrected immortal, incorruptible, and eternal in nature. It is appointed unto man once to be born, "once to die" (Heb. 9:27), once to be resurrected, and thereafter to "die no more." Reincarnation was repudiated by the Jews.
All below here is an essay on Reincarnation by a Christian minister and scholar. Read it only if you are interested.
Reincarnation, often known as metapsychosis, is an ancient doctrine. It dates from the earliest corruption of truth, from the very dawn of human history, when mankind first departed from the simple principles of the gospel. In some form it has existed at all times in all lands. It is an excellent example of the distortion of beautiful, fundamental truths.
Reincarnation, as commonly taught, means that the spirit or "soul" of a human being, after the death of the person, and after intervals of varying duration, returns to earth in another body. This may occur frequently, indeed may be a continuous, unending process.
Usually it is taught that the spirit inhabits from time to time bodies of the same species. That is, the spirit of a man will reappear on earth as a man; a woman as a woman; a human being as a human being. This may not, however, always be the case. Many believers in reincarnation hold that a "soul" which is a man today, may be a woman tomorrow, or vice versa. It is also often taught that the spirit of a man may in the next earthly incarnation, inhabit the body of a lower animal, say a dog or a cat. There is not full agreement among reincarnationists on many of these matters.
Under this doctrine our next-door neighbor may be the reincarnation of a man or a woman who lived centuries ago; our bootblack may be the reincarnation of one of the great philosophers of the past; our school teacher may have been an untutored savage a thousand years ago; our present dog, Sanko, may be nothing else than our dog, Fido, long since dead, in a more recent incarnation. And what is worse, the animating essence, the "soul," of Sanko, may be the former "soul" of a Newton, or a Galileo, or a Plato! Or, the wife who cooks our meals for us, may have been in an earlier reincarnation, the Queen of Sheba. Or, still more to our confusion, a man's wife might have been his husband when he was a woman in an earlier reincarnation.
Three doctrines lie at the foundation of belief in reincarnation.
First, the pre-existence of the "soul" of man; second, the indestructibility of the "soul" of man after death; and, third, the possibility of constant development of the pre-existent, eternal "soul." These are all necessary doctrines to the thinking mind. They are supported by divine revelation. But, in the explanations and applications of these truths, the proponents of reincarnation have failed dismally, and have shown how the semblance of truth, becoming untruth, may lead men into vast fields of deception.
The basic doctrine of pre-existence is always presented in an incomplete form. Clearly, if the "soul" of man has occupied from time to time successive and distinct bodies, birth cannot be the beginning of his "soul." There must be existence before each successive embodiment.
But what about the first incarnation?
One group sidestep the question by saying that before the first appearance on earth, God created the "soul." That merely means that after all, the spirit is not really eternal. Since it began on earth, it may end with the earth.
Another group of believers in reincarnation, sensing the inadequacy of this explanation, seek refuge in the doctrine that the "souls" of men began their existence as lower animals, and then they add that "in the lower kingdoms consciousness evolves in the mass, . . . as these group souls slowly develop, they continually divide and subdivide." (Cooper, Reincarnation, p. 48.)
Finally, by some mysterious process these animals, subdivisions of the mass, acquire a soul" and become human beings. All of which is merely saying that there is an "ocean of consciousness," out of which God dips individuals.
The conditions of reincarnation by which the immortal "soul" may progress are equally unacceptable. "Reincarnation is a plan whereby imperishable conscious beings are supplied with physical bodies appropriate to their stage of growth and through which they can come in contact with the lessons of physical life." (Ibid., p. 17.) This supplying of bodies is repeated endlessly. By this doctrine, the body of man is of little consequence. We take it on, cast it off, and put on another one, much as we do with our old suits of clothing. The "soul" of man is then really confined to this earth, as in a prison. Why this should be so, baffles the mind. His sojourn between incarnations can be of no value to him, since he must return to earth in a mortal body to gain further experience. He is of the earth, earthy. He cannot in reality go beyond the earth or physical experiences. Therefore, an infinity of experiences are beyond his reach. The universe is not his. Such an eternal "soul" demands a vaster area of understanding and action than the earthly life affords. There is no freedom in reincarnation.
The gospel of Jesus Christ declares that man an eternal spirit, acquainted with the spiritual world, came upon the earth when he was fitted and permitted to become acquainted with the material world. To this end he was given a body of material elements. This body belongs to him eternally, to be used by him, in a purified form, in his endless progressive journey among spiritual and material realities. He does not need another. It is a sacred possession, the home of his eternal spirit. With it, composed of celestialized material elements, he may forever explore the universe, in all its aspects, even to the limits of eternity. Without such a body, the immortal spirit would be handicapped in its victorious progress, in the midst of universal elements, toward the likeness of God. Reincarnation has gone far afield to explain that which the Lord has made clear to the human mind.
The doctrine of reincarnation really destroys personality as connected with earth life. The perpetual passage of spirits from body to body on earth, implies that the Lord is using the earth as a playground for a few spirits. As one writer remarks, the soul of the ancient patriarch Seth was probably the spirit of the great prophet Moses. Thus, individuality on the earth is lost. Temporal identification is hopelessly confused. There is no end to the disorder, for the process of reincarnation is unending. That violates the innate desire, even need, of man, for an individual, personal identity on earth as in heaven.
By reincarnation the power of God seems also to be limited. He uses the same, relatively few, spirits over and over again, endlessly, to accomplish whatever may be his purpose. He seems to be short of material and vague in his purpose. This is out of harmony with the gospel, which teaches that there is a host of spirits waiting to take upon themselves mortal bodies, and that the next stage of existence will come when this has been accomplished.
This doctrine of confusion presents no final objective in life. It seems to suggest only living over and over again on earth, much the same experiences, sometimes as a man, sometimes as something else. To what ultimate state does it lead us? Even in human affairs, soldiers who may fight many a battle in various places, come at last to an end -- victory or defeat. Reincarnation sets up no understandable objective of existence, except that we are advancing; but how and to what end? It reduces the spirit of man to the position of a treadmill worker in the affairs of the universe. Some say that the end is nirvana, first held to be extinction of existence; now a fusion into a mass of security. That does not help.
This is in clearest opposition to the doctrine of progression, which lies fundamentally in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The objective of life is to move toward the likeness of God. Man rises continually. Once on earth, he experiences earth life, with its joys and sorrows: then bids it farewell, to enter into another life where he continues with added power, in the advancing program of existence. He outgrows the past throughout eternal existence. Reincarnation moves in a circle; the gospel in an ascending spiral. Existence without a definite objective, but with constant repetitions, is valueless.
Finally, reincarnation is incompatible with the resurrection of the body, through the redeeming service of Jesus Christ. The continuous changing of bodies makes the resurrection and any redeeming act, unnecessary. It places the Christ in the class of fakirs. A Christian cannot believe in reincarnation. That should be, in itself, a sufficient answer to the question at the head of this writing.
References:
Rt. Reverend Irving S. Cooper, Reincarnation, The Hope of the World;
E. D. Walker, Reincarnation, A Study of Forgotten Truth.
</I>
M:)RGANITE
What an interesting post and responses. Thanks for the post.
I absolutely believe in reincarnation. It is a fact of life. I know I have lived before, and I know I will live again. For sure I've been both male and female, lived happy lives and sad. Have grown old, and have died young. There are no doubt people I have known before, are here now, and there are souls waiting for my return to the other side. There is simply no doubt. And I am very happy in that belief.
The "one shot and you're done concept" seems very calculated, very coldly vindictive in a way that is most human, and not very divine.. . Of course kings and popes don't want the have-nots think the tables might be turned next time. Much easier to keep the masses in line if you convince them they have only one chance to do it right. And it's so much easier too, to oppress others when there is no chance they are or could ever be 'like you'. Always a good question to ask - who benefits when personal feelings of past-lives are quashed or swept aside? When a person's feelings about God and the big divine plan are overruled or marginalized? Individual relationships with God don't put coins in the collection plate or soldiers on the field of battle. Ah well, to each their own. See you next time. ;)
I'm glad you are happy with your belief in reincarnation. But it is not a fact of life. You know the thought of having to have been responsible for my soul, how it was in a past life, seems horrible(and definitely anti-Biblical). Not divine. Not human, but mad. I've had Déjà vu before too. It turned out each time it was something that happened in this life, way back. :eek:
Also, the sheer numbers don't add up. There are more people alive now than there were souls dying in the past. :cool:
By your logic nothing is a fact of life, but that doesn't stop people from believing it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
How do you know what my logic is when the only logic was mentioned by the poster and not me?
I don't need you to tell me something obvious like there are people in this world that believe in reincarnation, even if you don't.
So, maybe you'd like to actually comment on reincarnation? Maybe tell us why you do or don't believe there's such a thing?
Quit trying to attack me personally and try to say something in support of an opinion on the subject.
Oh Please don't be so sensitive, my point was that ones belief does not have to be logical and seldom is I know nothing of an after life and really don't care. If I'm meant to come back to this plane of existence as a bug so what! I doubt if I'll be given a choice. Whether I get to see the Kingdom of heaven or burn in hell, again not my call, I don't know period. What I do have control over is what I do here where I have a conscious control, not absolute, but enough shape a life with.
By 31pumpkin
Must be okay for you to attack!Quote:
Past life, seems horrible(and definitely anti-Biblical). Not divine. Not human, but mad
I've not piped in here yet... so is it still OK to answer the original question? :o
The meaning of "reincarnation" has varied greatly over the years. Early Christians were quite certain that they would be resurrected, and nowhere in early mainstream Christianity (not counting gnostics and other sects) do we find teaching supporting what most people today call "reincarnation".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
For reference, there is an excellent collection of early church writings online here.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about!Quote:
31pumpkin disagrees: I wasn't talking to you. You end up arguing with your own SELF
By Rickj
Does that mean we should discount it ?Quote:
The meaning of "reincarnation" has varied greatly over the years. Early Christians were quite certain that they would be resurrected, and nowhere in early mainstream Christianity (not counting gnostics and other sects) do we find teaching supporting what most people today call "reincarnation
Cassie said:
I can not believe when we die God will only allow Christians in heaven. There are so many truly good people on this planet and their heart and souls are filled with love. They do so much for mankind, even dedicate their lives to making life better for others. Some of these people are not Christians. They have certainly earned the right to go to heaven.
If it were possible for any of us to be good enough to enter Heaven, then what Jesus Christ did for us was totally unnecessary. He didn't have to die for us, and He died for all of us. What some fail to see is that, like soap and water, benefits are only realized when the product is applied.
I can't think of any proof for reincarnation. Hindus write in their books but the writings are from the imaginations of men. Whereas the Bible was God-breathed. And in the Bible we are told that man is to die once. Also, that not by works can man enter Heaven, but by salvation. Believers will be judged further on their works, but that is after salvation in Jesus. So goodness does not equal salvation. You either believe it, or you don't.
I still say in reincarnation the numbers don't add up.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 AM. |