Reincarnation Within Monotheism?

Blessings,

Just the sayings - just the practices he told us to do. I am definitely not a Christian - i am a Follower of Jesus. What he told me to do - that is what i strive to do. This is abundantly clear in my own threads where i share my understandings of what Jesus instructed us to do: to be patient, to persevere, to be compassionate, meek, humble, giving, kind, loving, et cetera.

Blessings Be…
 
Sorry about that. I am not sure how that happened? This is what i wrote:

Blessings,

Just the sayings - just the practices he told us to do. I am definitely not a Christian - i am a Follower of Jesus. What he told me to do - that is what i strive to do. This is abundantly clear in my own threads where i share my understandings of what Jesus instructed us to do: to be patient, to persevere, to be compassionate, meek, humble, giving, kind, loving, et cetera.

Blessings Be…
 
Last edited:
Suba — can I tackle your post in reverse order? I think you'll see my logic:
to be patient, to persevere, to be compassionate, meek, humble, giving, kind, loving, et cetera.
That's a pretty generic message — Jesus' fame hardly rests on that advice. I just wonder why Him, particularly, when so many others have said the same thing, before and since?

i am a Follower of Jesus.
Which one, might I ask? I mean, here on IO there are a number of different notions. Mine is quite traditional and orthodox — Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. To others He's a bloke like you and me, just a bit wiser; a sage; a trouble-maker; a well-travelled collector of wisdoms; more than a man, but less than an angel; a complete myth ...

+++

Just the sayings just the practices he told us to do
How can you rely on them if not anything else?

If the Fathers 'chose for their own reasons which of the scriptures to include' as you suppose, then you have to accept that the 'sayings of Jesus' were chosen for the same reasons as the Letters of Paul?

In that regard, one can trust the authenticated letters of Paul more than one can on the Gospels; we have no idea who Matthew was, there are a number of possible Marks, two of whom were disciples of Paul himself; Luke was for sure a disciple of Paul, and whoever finally compiled John's Gospel lived in a Pauline community ... so Paul was better placed to influence the content of the Gospels than anyone else ... supposing Paul 'watered down' or 'toughened up' the sayings to suit his own agenda?

I would also point out, apart from Jesus' claim to divinity (how do you read those?), that Jesus didn't really say anything original or revolutionary. It's there in rabbinical tradition, long before He came along.

Have you been baptised? Into what community? Do you celebrate the Eucharist? Presuming you don't belong to a Church, then are you not counted among those who 'went away' (cf John 6:67-68)?

Not trying to be awkward — but you do present a doctrine that stands on very unsure foundations, so you won't be surprised if I challenge them.
 
Blessings,

Thanks for the questions Thomas. The truth is, these last few responses have taken me down a road I always want to avoid – arguing over Jesus. I just found myself enjoying the argument for argument's sake – but now I must stop. You win – that is cool with me. What I ultimately wish for is to connect with others through the beautiful things Jesus taught us. To become more Christ like by embodying those things he told us to do.

That what I take to be the central teachings of Jesus is considered "generic" to you – well, that creates an insurmountable distance between us. That invites sadness in me to think that all those instructions Jesus gave to us could ever be considered generic. Jesus' fame? I would argue that the Sermon on the Mount is his central teachings? What say you?

I know Christianity is built on the belief that he is the only Son of GOD, that he died for our sins, and that, if we believe in that, and give ourselves completely over to him we will be saved – but if you were to take how many references there are to those teaching (in the gospels) versus how many there are to giving to the poor, turning the other cheek, patient, perseverance, compassion, meekness, etc: which, just by sure numbers, would you consider to be more emphasized. These generic teachings you talk about – are the teachings of Jesus.

How can I rely on them and nothing else? That is simple: Jesus lays out a perfect system.

I pray that this ends our discussion. I really wish to talk about the "generic message" – at least that does not invite argument as I believe most Christians would see compassion and all the other godly qualities as something uncontestable when it comes to Jesus: generic or not. I wish you well Thomas. I am sorry for ending our discussion – it's just not helping me to be more compassionate, egoless, loving, or joyful – so it is of no use to me. May GOD's blessings be with you always.

Blessings Be…
 
I'm sorry to see that you take offence Suba, it is natural on this site that people discuss their differing understandings on religion. You made some statements about someones religion that wasn't flattering and Thomas, who is rather well read, challenged your clams. That's how it usually goes around here. Hopefully you can find a way to discuss issues here while avoiding arguments, or join in on topics you don't take as seriously.
 
I just found myself enjoying the argument for argument's sake
That can be a tendency here at IO.
I am not trying to argue, simply to clarify, for my own understanding.

What I ultimately wish for is to connect with others through the beautiful things Jesus taught us. To become more Christ like by embodying those things he told us to do.
I quite agree, but I also believe 'to become more Christ like' involves understanding who He is.

That what I take to be the central teachings of Jesus is considered "generic" to you – well, that creates an insurmountable distance between us.
My point is that the virtues you speak of are not unique to Christianity – they are common to the great Traditions of the world – what I would say renders Christ unique is not what He said, nor what He did, but what He said and did and why, and what that says about Him.

You speak of the Beatitudes. I would direct you to consider the implication of Our Lord's words when, repeating the Decalgue, the Commandments from God that Moses brought down the mountain, Our Lord says "But I tell you... " seven times, and offers His own commentary on the Law, rewriting the contemporary understanding, in some instances reversing it! In effect He is rewriting the Ten Commandments, which means He is either a blasphemer, or He speaks with Divine authority.

The central teaching of Jesus is the message of universal love. One simply cannot claim that Christianity is the only religious expression of that message. It is, I believe, the most far-reaching expression, Our Lord being that Divine Love personified, for our sakes.

What the message of universal love says, in Christ, is that God so loves His creature He comes to them as one of them, that they might come to Him. For me that is a love beyond compare.

This is my focus — it is His prayer, that we come to know Christ in the fellowship of the Father and the Holy Spirit: "whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me" (John 15:26) and "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth" (John 16:13), "that they may be one, as we also are one" (John 17:11 and 22).

That invites sadness in me to think that all those instructions Jesus gave to us could ever be considered generic.
I'm talking of the practice of virtue, specifically. There are other instructions which transcend them utterly, and are unique. His establishment of the Eucharist, for example.

Jesus' fame? I would argue that the Sermon on the Mount is his central teachings? What say you?
I would say the three commandments He gave us are His central teaching. The first two are known to Isreal, it is their prayer: Love God and love thy neighbour (Mattew 22:37-40, Mark 12:29-31). In fact in Luke's account, it is not Our Lord who says these words, but 'a certain lawyer' when Our Lord asks him "What is written in the Law?" (Luke 10:26).

The third is telling: "A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Jesus gives His disciples a 'new commandment' which puts it equal to the Decalogue. Now the term 'commandment' is somewhat fluid, for a decree from the Sanhedrin would also be called a commandment, but a commandment is always delivered from the standpoint of authority. In the text, the authority for this commandment is Christ Himself – "as i have loved you" – not because God loves you, not because the Law of Israel demands it, but because He does: "This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12).

I know Christianity is built on the belief that he is the only Son of GOD, that he died for our sins, and that, if we believe in that, and give ourselves completely over to him we will be saved – but if you were to take how many references there are to those teaching (in the gospels) versus how many there are to giving to the poor, turning the other cheek, patient, perseverance, compassion, meekness, etc: which, just by sure numbers, would you consider to be more emphasized. These generic teachings you talk about – are the teachings of Jesus.

Again, 'giving to the poor, turning the other cheek, patient, perseverance, compassion, meekness' are not unique features of Christianity. They are not even common to religion. Philosophy arives at the same principles, enshrines the same ethical and moral values, without reference to God or a particular teacher. All I'm trying to see is why you have chosen Christ from among many who impart such wisdoms.

Christ details not just what we should do, but why we should do it.

How can I rely on them and nothing else? That is simple: Jesus lays out a perfect system.
It's perfect, but in His own words, it's impossible (cf Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37, 18:27). Only in faith, hope and love can that possibility be realised. Only in Christ.

... I believe most Christians would see compassion and all the other godly qualities as something uncontestable when it comes to Jesus.
That's because most Christians see Christ as God. He does not just embody Godly qualities, He is God incarnate.

I'm not sure who you see, that's my point.
 
I must say that the Surah 2, verse 28 of the Noble Qur'an in Bosnian language is as follows: ""How can you not believe in Allah, you--who were nothing and He gave you life; after which (then) He will cause you to die and will bring you back to life; then to Him you will return."

This is just an example of the differences in translation of the Arabic version. When reading the English version of 2:28 I one gets the impression that multiple deaths and lives are implied. The Bosnian version, however says: humans were non-existent, then God created them. Later, they will live and die, and will be resurrected. After the resurrection they return to God for their second life (eternity in Hell or Heaven).

This makes sense.

From what I know about the Quran, reincarnation does not fit into Islamic theology. I think that the verse 2:28 refers to Allah or God giving the initial "breath of life" to humans either in the womb as individuals, or to all human beings as a general creation. "Then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life" refers to one's physical death and the Resurrection on the Day of Judgement.

But this is difficult to know without speaking Arabic and being able to read the Quran in the original.
 
I remember reading this , " you must be born again , reenter your mom's belly as spirit " I think its from the Bible , but I am not sure .
 
Amica said:
If there is no such teaching in the monotheistic faiths, how do we account for people who "remember" past lives?
Psychology can account for these. Our brains can distort time and create false histories, particularly under hypnotic suggestion. If you search 'Hypnosis' and 'Time Distortion' you will get a lot of information about it.

It works like this: You allow me to put you into a hypnotic trance, so you are open to my suggestions. I suggest you have just gone on a two year sojourn to New York City and had a romantic affair. Then I wake you out of your trance. Only twenty minutes have passed, but when you come out of the trance you will believe that you have been in New York for two years having an affair (with all detail included) and will be able to recount the details of your time there, vividly. Such is the creative ability of your mind. Removing the conscious protective wrapper from your mind both makes you vulnerable and enhances your abilities, or so say the books.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Distortion-Hypnosis-Experimental-Investigation/dp/1899836950

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/extrasensory-perceptions/hypnosis1.htm
 
There are a few people with vary specific memories . I remember a story of this child that had memories of having been a fighter pilot in WW2. He had died in a chrash landing on an air craft carrier . The child had night mares of dieing in a fire . He knew the air craft from the 1940s . He knew the name of his wife from that past life .
p.s. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ted-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html
http://nell-rose.hubpages.com/hub/Past-Lives-The-True-Story-of-The-Children-Who-Have-Lived-Before
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=258526
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=44783
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Technology/story?id=894217&page=1#.UX8W9qZslXQ
 
Elijah > John was an example of reincarnation.

What use is the belief in reincarnation though?

The only idea it fosters is that there is more time than just this life, an urgency is needed.

If you want to keep coming back here, if this place is enough, if it satisfies you, you needn't be very urgent, it can just be a hobby.

This will not arise to the sincere.

For the sincere, it is a question of life and death, nothing else is relevant.

Either life is found or death comes in the search - the only options are these.

Free will itself has dropped away, this is it.

It was always it.
 
Elijah > John was an example of reincarnation.
Actually, it isn't, and a knowledge of the tradition would enlighten you to that fact. Those who argue otherwise are arguing from assumption.

The only idea it fosters is that there is more time than just this life, an urgency is needed.
That's why the Dalai Lama appreciated the Christian idea of 'one life' as a very powerful idea.
 
If there exists a forgiving G!d, I can't BELIEVE that he would think we'd get it all in one life and only give us one chance to get it right.

That in itself is enough... forgive 7x70...
 
If there exists a forgiving G!d, I can't BELIEVE that he would think we'd get it all in one life and only give us one chance to get it right.

That in itself is enough... forgive 7x70...

Do we know what he wants us to 'get'?
 
Actually, it isn't, and a knowledge of the tradition would enlighten you to that fact. Those who argue otherwise are arguing from assumption.

It states they are the same essence.

What do you think reincarnation is?

That's why the Dalai Lama appreciated the Christian idea of 'one life' as a very powerful idea.

By teaching one life though, you give people an easy out.

If there is only one life, suicide becomes an escape.

To avoid this, there is reincarnation, the wheel keeps turning even if you kill yourself in this life, you will come again and have even worse circumstances because of your action (karma).

Both have their benefits, it depends more on the person as to which is most useful.
 
As far as I know Sikhism is the only major monotheistic faith which explicitly defines reincarnation as being part of their religions.

The Druze and some other minor Middle Eastern sects such as the Isma'ili Shiah also believe in reincarnation.
 
As far as I know Sikhism is the only major monotheistic faith which explicitly defines reincarnation as being part of their religions.

The Druze and some other minor Middle Eastern sects such as the Isma'ili Shiah also believe in reincarnation.

Nanak has gotten his belief from Hinduism, and Buddha has described it most accurately.

In truth, each one is the manifestation of a single essence. The energies we create through desires and the like continue beyond our physical form, finding new forms to manifest through so that the desire can be satisfied.

This is called the soul, although it is usually explained in quite simplistic terms. As we take form, we cling to it, and as desires build for this form, we solidify the soul as something distinct from Spirit.

Eventually each soul must return to Spirit, as each drop of water eventually returns to the ocean. All suffering stems from a reluctance towards this inevitability.

Only through the father is there eternal life, the part cannot remain separate forever.

Humility, letting go of all that is creating distinction, is the way home.

What actually changes? The drop and the ocean are both water, you are simply no more so finite.

Of course, it looks like death to the drop, it will cease.

It must, but that is the fear.
 
It states they are the same essence.
What do you think reincarnation is?
No, it states that the Spirit who animates them both is the same, not that the essence of the individual is the same essence in both persons.

By teaching one life though, you give people an easy out.
D'you think so? I don't. I think the easy way out is to assume that it doesn't matter what happens in this one, I get another to put it right ... indeed, put like that, 'reincarnation' just points to the more unfortunate aspects of human nature, to put things off ...

If there is only one life, suicide becomes an escape.
Not really.

To avoid this, there is reincarnation, the wheel keeps turning even if you kill yourself in this life, you will come again and have even worse circumstances because of your action (karma).
As opposed to being altogether dead ... the logic doesn't follow.

Nor do I accept the notion of karma as someone keeping a scorecard against your name.
 
Back
Top