Can you Deny Reincarnation exists?

I can deny it exists, though of course I could be wrong. I made a post about reincarnation in a recent thread explaining why I don't believe in it..

We all will surely die one day. Our flesh will decay into nothingness given enough time. There is no disputing this...correct?

Now, if reincarnation, which is basically a short way of saying taking on or embodying as flesh again, were true, why would we "remember" this very moment?

Eventually, this obscure moment will just be a tiny portion of a past life that your future "present moment self" would have no recollection of...right? In fact, the reincarnation theory would seem to hold that our future self would actually experience or have what I guess you would call an "active memory" of his life, just like we all do right now.

So why do we actually experience our lives now...this particular life within the seemingly endless cycle?

By my understanding, it would seem logical that this particular period in time must be somehow different. Or that reincarnation is bunk. Or that our understanding of "time" is bunk. Who knows...many other things could be going on. Either way, I am not convinced I will experience another life on Earth embodied as a human after this one.

reply to post by joemelon


Fair enough...

At least you admit you could be wrong...

The answer to your question can be found in a gnostic text called Pistis Sophia.... in which it describes what happens to a person that is reincarnated...

What happens to "a man who has committed no sin, but done good persistently, but has not found the mysteries?" The Pistis Sophia tells us that the soul of the good man who has not found the mysteries will receive "a cup filled with thoughts and wisdom." This will allow the soul to remember its divine origin and so to pursue the "mysteries of the Light" until it finds them and is able to "inherit the Light forever." To "inherit the Light forever"

reluctant-messenger.com...

thank you for your reply

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
Define reincarnation and its context. Are we using the traditional definition that one goes through continous life cycles in different carnal forms, such as animals, in accordance to the bad deeds in a previous life? Or are we discussing reincarnation in a sense that an individual's essence, commonly referred to as the soul or spirit, is installed into a new human body if lessons or themes were not learned?

I disagree with the former solely because if I was to be reincarnated as an eagle, what possible actions can I do that could determine the degradation or evolution of caliber in the next carnal form I take?

Personally I don't believe we usually incarnate into animals or things that could be considered a "lesser being"

Unless of course someone really screws up... Perhaps that might be something that a serial killer or rapist might be worthy of simply because they certainly are not worthy of being human...

Unfortunately though... this is not the purpose of this thread.... I didn't write this thread to define its context or discuss the in's and outs of reincarnation...

I wrote this thread in the hope that people will realise that its not only in the bible.... but it exists, and always has

edit on 18-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

I'm going to skip the little part about those descriptive nouns not deserving to be humans but honestly, i think your argument, supported by those verses you have quoted from Matthew, is weak, especially when the verses you have presented is Jesus answering the disciples regarding manmade salvation, possibly reffering to the impossible precepts of the time.

Surely, all things are possible with God and reincarnation is one possiblity in the realm of infinite possiblities, but to say with convinction that reincarnation is mentioned in the biblethrough those verses is false. To say that reincarnation is vaguely alluded to in the bible would be a claim that i would agree with if you presented that argument with the same verses, but it would be an uphill battle...

reply to post by DelayedChristmas

To say that reincarnation is vaguely alluded to in the bible would be a claim that i would agree with if you presented that argument with the same verses, but it would be an uphill battle...

Well you are welcome to your opinion... I believe I have a very valid/strong argument here...

But hey... if it's an "uphill battle"... Lets climb that hill shall we?

Jesus said... You must be born again

Now if you had not ever heard of any of the concepts of "Christianity" before hearing that passage... What would you think?

Most people have been taught reincarnation doesn't exist.... In fact its considered a Heresy

And Christianity has designed an elaborate loophole around it...

It was turned from a blatantly obvious statement... into something that occurs in your current incarnation...

And its more then likely bible authors kept that teaching out of what is written... having their own agenda behind the reason for it... in my humble opinion

reply to post by Akragon


Principles of Biblical interpretation include paying attention to context.

You quote Matthew 19:26, one verse. But here is the larger context.

“23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! 24 Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” 25 The disciples were greatly astonished when they heard this and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans, but for God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said to him, “Look, we have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And whoever has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

A prevailing belief of the time—and is still prevalent today—is that people who ‘have’ are blessed. When Jesus says to the disciples that it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom they are astonished by this. The thinking of the time indicated that rich people were blessed by God and as such were more sure of entering the Kingdom that the lowly pauper.
Notice also that Jesus speaks of entering the kingdom of heaven, not endlessly returning to this life over and over again.

Thus the context of ‘with God all things are possible’ is telling the Jews that even though it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom even God can melt such a man’s heart and save him.
The problem is that the pagan dualism has been injected into Christianity and it assumed that the Bible teaches that humans HAVE souls, not ARE souls which is the correct Biblical view.
Gen 2:7 sates unequivocally that God created man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into him so that he BECAME a living souls. Nephesh Mat, in Hebrew.

So the text you point to has nothing to do with reincarnation, but points to the ability of God to save even those deemed hard to reach.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The miracles are nothing more than creations of Rome and its pagan leaders. Jesus turning water into wine is no different from the Roman god Bacchus turning water into wine. Bacchus came much earlier than Jesus, and before Bacchus there was the Greek god Dionysus who performed the same miracle.

All Rome did was write in the miracles and resurrection to turn him into Bacchus in my opinion.
You can't just ignore such obvious similarities and act like they don't mean anything.

reply to post by DanZek

Principles of Biblical interpretation include paying attention to context.

Which is exactly why I tell people that Hebrews 9 has nothing to do with reincarnation....

A prevailing belief of the time—and is still prevalent today—is that people who ‘have’ are blessed. When Jesus says to the disciples that it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom they are astonished by this. The thinking of the time indicated that rich people were blessed by God and as such were more sure of entering the Kingdom that the lowly pauper.
Notice also that Jesus speaks of entering the kingdom of heaven, not endlessly returning to this life over and over again.

Apparently you haven't read the entire thread...

Jesus said I AM the door, and who ever shall enter by me will find pasture, and go in and out

Thus the context of ‘with God all things are possible’ is telling the Jews that even though it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom even God can melt such a man’s heart and save him.

True... but again that has nothing to do with the possibility of reincarnation...

The problem is that the pagan dualism has been injected into Christianity and it assumed that the Bible teaches that humans HAVE souls, not ARE souls which is the correct Biblical view.

Souls within a mortal shell... which still has nothing to do with reincarnation...

Gen 2:7 sates unequivocally that God created man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into him so that he BECAME a living souls. Nephesh Mat, in Hebrew.

Genesis was written by a man... and is not quoting the son of God...

Jesus said all that came before me are thieves and robbers.... Moses came before Jesus... which puts him in that category... and all things considered... Moses wasn't that great of a man...

So the text you point to has nothing to do with reincarnation, but points to the ability of God to save even those deemed hard to reach.

I didn't say it had anything to do with reincarnation.... but reincarnation exists... or all things are not possible with God... Context is there because its an ALL inclusive statement...

Not somethings... Not most things.... ALL THINGS...

And again considering Jesus said to Nicodemus "YOU must be born again"...



Sounds good to me...

Reincarnation- not the best, for a couple of reasons
1) Reincarnation has with it the idea of karma. karma sounds kind of reasonable on the surface. But for example, in India, where many people are considered to be in a lower caste (the caste system), nobody who has means really has an incentive to help-- i.e. the poor. They just conveniently rationalize it and say:

well they are in a lower caste because of karma. They did something in their past life to get them there, therefore they deserve whatever they get

This is a spineless, and a total copout way of a person to shirk their responsibility to help their fellow man. I'm sure that I'll get some responses saying: "Oh yes... but I do help other people". This is probably true. But by and large, karma is an easy way to rationalize yourself out of all that.

2) With all of the natural disasters: possible nuclear war, typhoons, EQs, mass die-offs, weird sounds in the sky, comets appearing with very little notice, flooding, being on the brink of a worldwide financial crisis... who would really want to reincarnate back here. Once is enough!
2a) There might not be a planet left to reincarnate back to, in either case. What does a person who believes in reincarnation do with that potential situation?

reply to post by MarkJS


Good points...

Though if one decided not to help those in need there is still negative Karmic vibrations... Lack of action when its necessary...

Reincarnation- not the best, for a couple of reasons

Its strange that many seem to think Reincarnation is a good thing... While it may be true that being reincarnated would probably be better then burning in some lake of fire... In any case its not the preferred option to anyone who believes in it... progression is always preferred, otherwise what is the point?

1) Reincarnation has with it the idea of karma. karma sounds kind of reasonable on the surface. But for example, in India, where many people are considered to be in a lower caste (the caste system), nobody who has means really has an incentive to help-- i.e. the poor.

Belief in Karma and reincarnation does not imply that one must adhear to any particular doctrine of said belief...

Personally I tend to go with what feels right in my heart....

They just conveniently rationalize it and say: well they are in a lower caste because of karma. They did something in their past life to get them there, therefore they deserve whatever they get

I do believe people deserve what they get actually... though I also believe its our duty to at least attempt to prevent bad things from happening if and when its possible...

This is a spineless, and a total copout way of a person to shirk their responsibility to help their fellow man. I'm sure that I'll get some responses saying: "Oh yes... but I do help other people". This is probably true. But by and large, karma is an easy way to rationalize yourself out of all that.

Not if one understands the concept of love... Gods rules brother... Love your neighbour as yourself...

2) With all of the natural disasters: possible nuclear war, typhoons, EQs, mass die-offs, weird sounds in the sky, comets appearing with very little notice, flooding, being on the brink of a worldwide financial crisis... who would really want to reincarnate back here. Once is enough!

Agreed...

2a) There might not be a planet left to reincarnate back to, in either case. What does a person who believes in reincarnation do with that potential situation?

Its called the The Dance of Shiva in Buddhism...

And its been happening since it all started... long before this earth existed as well... Now is just the lastest incarnation for all that are present.

reply to post by Akragon


Lol!! I asked that question for a very specific reason.. that reason being the great philosopher Socrates grasped the apparent paradox of how a holy, perfect and righteous, just God could forgive sin apart from eternal punishment.

"It may be that deity can forgive sins but I cannot see how.". - Socrates writing to Plato

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The miracles are nothing more than creations of Rome and its pagan leaders. Jesus turning water into wine is no different from the Roman god Bacchus turning water into wine. Bacchus came much earlier than Jesus, and before Bacchus there was the Greek god Dionysus who performed the same miracle.

All Rome did was write in the miracles and resurrection to turn him into Bacchus in my opinion.
You can't just ignore such obvious similarities and act like they don't mean anything.

Creations of Rome?? The gospel accounts and NT epistles, apart from John and Revelation, were all penned decades before the Empire began to persecute Christians. And CENTURIES before Theodocius I made it the official religion of the Empire. Horrible argument there. Especially after trying to point to one of those miracles to support your argument that Jesus came to Earth to eradicate hunger!!!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Lol!! I asked that question for a very specific reason.. that reason being the great philosopher Socrates grasped the apparent paradox of how a holy, perfect and righteous, just God could forgive sin apart from eternal punishment.

"It may be that deity can forgive sins but I cannot see how.". - Socrates writing to Plato

So you ask a question about Jesus, then back it up with Socrates?

Can you truly not see how?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Lol!! I asked that question for a very specific reason.. that reason being the great philosopher Socrates grasped the apparent paradox of how a holy, perfect and righteous, just God could forgive sin apart from eternal punishment.

"It may be that deity can forgive sins but I cannot see how.". - Socrates writing to Plato

So you ask a question about Jesus, then back it up with Socrates?

Can you truly not see how?

No, I responded to your notion that Hell, or separation from God for eternity was "illogical", when one of the greatest logical philosophers in human history understood it quite well.

I tell ya what Aaron, Ill put my faith in reincarnation and trying to save myself in my next life. Gonna stick with redemption through Christ this go-round.

How's that?

reply to post by Akragon

Correct... john said no... Though you don't think that the son of God... a man who remembered exactly where he came from would know a little more then John? John said No.... Jesus said specifically "this IS Elijah" He didn't say this is someone who resembles Elijah... He didn't say this is someone who came in the spirit of Elijah like many Christians say.... He said this IS him...

What is it with everyone wanting to think that John just doesn't remember who he was?

I'll repeat the necessary verse that came immediately after Jesus' statement...

Matthew 11:15

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

A little research on the above verse will go a long way in gaining understanding.

John told everyone who he was. If this truly contradicted what Jesus was trying to tell them, Jesus would have spoken up.

John 1:21-23

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, I responded to your notion that Hell, or separation from God for eternity was "illogical", when one of the greatest logical philosophers in human history understood it quite well.

Article on 'visions of hell' that Catholic saints have claimed to have seen through the centuries
It's not all inclusive.
It'll definately shock-awake any sleepy-heads reading this thread this morning ...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

To say that reincarnation is vaguely alluded to in the bible would be a claim that i would agree with if you presented that argument with the same verses, but it would be an uphill battle...

Well you are welcome to your opinion... I believe I have a very valid/strong argument here...

But hey... if it's an "uphill battle"... Lets climb that hill shall we?

Jesus said... You must be born again

You only have to read John, Chapter 3 to find out exactly what's required to be born again of the Spirit.

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Remember, this is exactly what Jesus told Peter too...

Matthew 16:16-17

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I love the narrow confinement of this discussion. Excellent trolling Sir! Nothing like baiting christians.

Carry on...

reply to post by Akragon

Its called the The Dance of Shiva in Buddhism...

And its been happening since it all started... long before this earth existed as well... Now is just the lastest incarnation for all that are present.

I thought your original post said that we were only using the Bible to discuss this topic.

What verse in the Bible backs up your theory?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So you're telling me that Jesus was the ONLY "Christian" that was killed that day? HA! Fat chance for that! If you think they killed Jesus and Jesus alone, you need a reality check.

Mark wasn't written until 70 CE, over 30 years after Jesus' death! You may want to brush up on your history a bit, LOL. That's years and years after Rome started persecuting Christians, and it was the first gospel written!

How were Paul's epistles written before the Christian persecutions when Saul's persecutions are in Acts? You're telling me that Paul converted before he stopped killing Christians? You're joking right? Written before the persecutions? Uhhhh... no, try again!


I see you're ignoring the obvious similarities with Bacchus, a Roman god who came centuries before Jesus. Are you saying that's only a coincidence?