what religion's teach.

[BigJoeNobody]

My problem with this is that Islam, as far as I have encountered it, rejects reincarnation.

Judy

I have no problems rejecting reincarnation. Why is that a problem? Most Christians and I'd probably stretch to say all Jews reject it as well. Reincarnation (as a hinduistic idea) means in this life I can be rewarded or punished for what I did in a previous life. Which means if the lessons I learned in the last life through life itself were wrong, then there is no hope for me ascending toward something better. I'm not entirely sure how the Buddhist system is handled. But as a mathmatics minded person. The idea of reincarnation without new creation, doesn't add up, also it doesn't explain things like extinction. If that animal/creature was a step in the reincarnation cycle, how could you justify extinction of a species?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Joe, she never said anyone else had a problem rejecting reincarnation! lol. She said she has a problem with Abrahamic religions because reincarnation is rejected.

As far as your mathematical bent, from my point of view reincarnation makes more sense than new souls being constantly created. As you know, matter cannot be created or destroyed. Its state can change. So reincarnation makes sense in that the death of a person changes it from matter to energy, which is then reincarnated back into matter of another individual.

Within the Abrahamic religions souls are born in a body; when they die their soul goes on either the up or down escalator. New souls are created when people are born. In the former case, matter is being removed from the universe and in the latter case matter is being created into the universe. That breaks the laws of reality as we currently understand them.

 

[Hermes]

Abrahamic religion lack intellectual congruence for the exact reasons Devil has reasoned, but that's only me....whatever floats your boat...P.S. many non hindu or buddhists also believe in reincarnation, I guess it makes sense to them. It is interesting to note that some sufis, jesuits and kabbalists too believe the karma/reincarnation paradigm.

Joe, she never said anyone else had a problem rejecting reincarnation! lol. She said she has a problem with Abrahamic religions because reincarnation is rejected.

As far as your mathematical bent, from my point of view reincarnation makes more sense than new souls being constantly created. As you know, matter cannot be created or destroyed. Its state can change. So reincarnation makes sense in that the death of a person changes it from matter to energy, which is then reincarnated back into matter of another individual.

Within the Abrahamic religions souls are born in a body; when they die their soul goes on either the up or down escalator. New souls are created when people are born. In the former case, matter is being removed from the universe and in the latter case matter is being created into the universe. That breaks the laws of reality as we currently understand them.

 

[wil]

I'd say when it comes to reincarnation acceptance in Abrahamic religions you've got a few willing to entertain these thoughts...

Starting with Renewal Judaism, New Thought Christianity, and in Islam, Sufism...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Joe, she never said anyone else had a problem rejecting reincarnation! lol. She said she has a problem with Abrahamic religions because reincarnation is rejected.

As far as your mathematical bent, from my point of view reincarnation makes more sense than new souls being constantly created. As you know, matter cannot be created or destroyed. Its state can change. So reincarnation makes sense in that the death of a person changes it from matter to energy, which is then reincarnated back into matter of another individual.

Within the Abrahamic religions souls are born in a body; when they die their soul goes on either the up or down escalator. New souls are created when people are born. In the former case, matter is being removed from the universe and in the latter case matter is being created into the universe. That breaks the laws of reality as we currently understand them.

Souls being born into a body is a concept introduced in Christianity. I'm pretty sure (and I'm sure shib can enlighten us on this) Judaism left it ambiguous. In Islam however, when this existence was created all souls were as well. Some Hadiths (presumed strong Hadiths) stated that Mouhammed (PBUH) asked about the origin of souls. And it was said that all souls were asked whether they wanted to be angels, Djinn, or human. With each able to reach differing levels of paradise due to the choice to follow or not being greater.

As for matter, you are assuming a soul is matter, or energy as we know it (newtonian physics would say the same about matter or energy although i might have my names messed up). From a standpoint of souls being created at birth, a soul (presumed energy of God's voice) would be created at birth by sharing pieces of the parents' soul, or a new soul is created all together and once the body dies it is released from this existence into the afterlife existence. Balance is restores. 0+5-5=0

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Abrahamic religion lack intellectual congruence for the exact reasons Devil has reasoned, but that's only me....whatever floats your boat...P.S. many non hindu or buddhists also believe in reincarnation, I guess it makes sense to them. It is interesting to note that some sufis, jesuits and kabbalists too believe the karma/reincarnation paradigm.

Its funny you mention groups that go by something other than just Muslim. Allah commands that Muslims be of 1 people, Muslim. Not create divisions.

And to claim a lack of intellectual congruence (your word) means you should be able to prove that our knowledge is wrong whereas yours is right. Do you think you can do that to a point that noone could deny your claim?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I'd say when it comes to reincarnation acceptance in Abrahamic religions you've got a few willing to entertain these thoughts...

Starting with Renewal Judaism, New Thought Christianity, and in Islam, Sufism...

in other words groups that stray from the traditions of said religions.

 

[wil]

Funny thing is each and every stray usually indicates they are straying either towards truth or the original nature of the teachings that have been bastardized... two sides, at least two sides (in the case of Judaism at least five, Islam dozens, and Christianity tens of thousands)

 

[Devils' Advocate]

And to claim a lack of intellectual congruence (your word) means you should be able to prove that our knowledge is wrong whereas yours is right. Do you think you can do that to a point that noone could deny your claim? BigJoe.

Can anyone do that to a point that no-one could deny their claim??????

 

[Thomas]

Souls being born into a body is a concept introduced in Christianity.

Sorry BigJoeNobody but that's not quite right.

As ever there is a necessity to qualify that because of the proliferation of denominations, but I would say outside of America, most if not all denominations follow the holistic Hebrew view of body-and-soul, rather than the dualist Hellenic view of a body-soul dichotomy.

As regards reincarnation in a Christian context, the dialogue is not an entirely closed book, but the a priori problem is that most people assume that what reincarnates is the individual self ... and then the doctrine founders on contradictions, as far as I can see ... how many selves can a person have, and who is it, or what is it, that has all these selves?

This is prevalent in the Western mindset that holds a rather Hellenic notion of the 'soul' and moreover the 'self'. I don't think Hindus or Buddhists see the self quite so possessively as the West does, but the West tends not to discern what the original teachings are, but rather simply latches onto the idea ... mostly I suspect though FOMO!

If we take the soul as the essence of the self, then how can the soul be this self in this life, and yet another self in another life ... that's two selves, and unless we're assuming multiple personalities, the idea undermines the original concept of 'self' ... but that's as I see it.

If we are saying the soul is prior to the self, and indeed the self is just, as the Buddhists would say, the aggregate of temporal and ephemeral states, then I have grounds to discuss reincarnation ... but then that which people tell me reincarnates is not the self, but the aggregates, and the Buddhist at this point would shake his or head head and say no, that's not quite right.

Again with Hinduism. The soul can be said to be synonymous with Atman, and then one can discuss the soul-God relation in relation to the Atman-Brahman relation ... and furthermore I would say there is more congruence here in the two traditions, and indeed that both traditions would shake their heads at the common and popular idea of reincarnation as, again, popular but somewhat erroneous because of the tendency towards 'self-possession' in its assumptions.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

And to claim a lack of intellectual congruence (your word) means you should be able to prove that our knowledge is wrong whereas yours is right. Do you think you can do that to a point that noone could deny your claim? BigJoe.

Can anyone do that to a point that no-one could deny their claim??????

I think your question indicates my point...