Christians are Free to Accept Reincarnation

[fourgrtkidos]

I am new to your forum and do not know the dynmics of it compared to some other discussions groups I am on....... hope you do not consider this post to be intrusive, since the discussion has been going on for quite a while with only a few participants.

I have read the entire post, whew, very long and am painfully aware that I am not as well read as any of you.

However, I want to put my two cents in and ask a couple of questions.

First, I was raised a southern Baptist and was "saved" at 11 and baptised. I re-dedicated at 23 yo and really BELIEVED everything I had been taught about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity. (So that you know my background).

When my son was 2.5-3 yo he casually told me "I used to know you before I was in your tummy". I said "Oh, really?" Wondering what funny, childish story he had made up and made ready, like mothers do, to listen with feigned interest to his childish tale. He said, "I wasn't very nice to you, especially when you were Maureen. We have to be better this time." I was confused and asked him "What are you talking about? My name is Michelle." He ignored me and kept going......What he said next caught my attention and I spent the next 15 minutes not having to pretend to be interested in what he was saying. I was scared to death, actually and thought demons or evil spirits were influencing my son........ He described his life as my grandfather, his illness over the last 2 years of my grandfather's life, where he lived, names of nursing homes, the hospital where he was treated, then his death and then matter-of factly declared "then I was in your tummy and now I'm here." Then something again about let's get it right this time.........

I called my Grandmother and Dad immediately..... and asked about my grandfather's death, I had not been there, I held quite a grudge against him. They thought I was just finally curious and had forgiven my grandfather. They confirmed the description of the cancers movement as it metasisized, facility names, etc and the actual time and date of his death. (Which coreesponds to my son's conception.) When I mentioned the name Maureen, my Grandmother exclaimed "How do you know her name?!" and hung up on me...... my Dad says that was the name of my grandfather's first wife, before WWII........

I know there is not any real evidence here. I just wanted to share.

A question.
Somewhere in the bible it says God desires that all men would be saved. Anyone know that verse?? I have always felt after reading that verse, that He would give a chance for all to be saved, then. And, in our world, not everyone knows about Jesus...... so it seems we might need multiple lifetimes in order to geographically live in a place where we have access to Christian teaching. Although, now, it is easier than ever with the internet. (A point only to be pondered if you beleive Jesus is the only way to heaven.)

~Michelle

[Dondi]

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." - I Timothy 2:4

Be advised, that just because God would have all men be saved doesn't mean that He doesn't give man that choice. Man has the freewill to accept or reject.

Another similiar verse says:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." - II Peter 3:9

That repentance is relegated to us.

But that's a fascinating account you have, fourgrtkidos. And it deserves great consideration. I've been rather leery about past-life memories. I'm not sure what to make of them. On one hand, it could lend evidence to reincarnation.

But if you believe in a spirit world, and that there are both good spirits and evil spirits, it would not take much for an evil spirit to deceptively plant the false memories, even if it is shown to be true. We reasonable assume that these spirits have been around and probably territorial and could quite possibly have enough information of your grandfather to impress upon you son the idea that he remembers you in a former life. That's just another explanation.

But I dunno. The jury is still out for me. Having had a traditional Christian upbringing like yours, I'm nevertheless open to explore possibilities. But it's hard especially when you have been so orientated to believe a certain way.

BTW, Welcome to the CR forums, fourgrtkidos! Thanks for your input and for asking questions.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

How do you know you're not?

I think it would be good if you would just admit and get on with the miracles.

Chris

No, thou shalt not tempt me my child. All will come in due time... due time..

It's so clear now, my patiences, loving nature, equality of all obviously comes from back in the day when I was the J man... Why didn't I see this before.

[Nick the Pilot]

fourgrtkidos,

I thought you might be interested in the Child Past Lives Forum, which has documented many cases just like yours, and specializes in cases like yours.

Past Life Forum - Powered by vBulletin

I use the username Bunataro there, as I was Japanese in a recent past life.

Also, according to my non-Christian belief system, yes we are saved, but we save ourselves through our own effort. No one does it for us.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by fourgrtkidos

I was scared to death, actually and thought demons or evil spirits were influencing my son........

~Michelle

Greetings Michelle,
Sounds like a "house divided" situation. Why would evil spirits be interested in "making good" a relationship?

As your child grows he may forget all about it.

If evil spirits were running around planting false memories in all of us, what hope would any of us have?

We find that when false memories are implanted it is by hypnosis or suggestion- and that is by human beings.


God Bless,
Br.Bruce

[I am free]

As a Hindu I find this thread very interesting. I had for years rejected reincarnation or accumulation of karmic effects as unscientific hogwash. I prescribed to the policy "Keep out of trouble and trouble will keep away from you" until ultimately I went through a phase where nothing went right for me. Personally, professionally and physically too I was down in the dumps. A relative casually mention "It is all karma" which needless to say annoyed me very much. She seemed to imply that I "deserved" all the bad the things happening to me becuase of my "evil deeds".

But I was intrigued nevertheless and it made me read up and explore the topic. Whatever little I read about the law of karma, and reincarnation seemed so logical to me that I found no difficulty in accepting this.

I feel karma acts in a complex manner which most of us would not be able to understand. A lot of actions have simple and direct reactions which can be observed easily. A lot of other actions produce no immediate effect and no perceivable reaction...but as with everything in nature, I believe nothing is in vain.

Do good actions always result in pleasant experiences? I would think not...I think pain and suffering have immense value in spiritual growth. God has his own plans and what we may perceive as "pleasant" may not always be "good" for us.

Does reincarnation always "progress", never "regress"? Again, we are not sure how the laws of karma and reincarnation work actually, so it would just conjecture on our part. But then as someone pointed out earlier there is learning to be had in every incarnation. We may perceive the life of a worm as worthless, but who knows what God has planned?

What value is reincarnation if we dont remember our past mistakes? Reincarnation isn't about not repeating past mistakes...I have not been able to manage that even with the one life that I remember . Nor is it about remembering our past and making amends.

Reincarnation is about living another life and learning. Our past karmas will exhaust themselves into a new set of experiences, some pleasant and some not so pleasant. Ultimately freedom from this cycle of life and death depends on the conscious choices we make and on our ability to overcome the dispositions we are born with.

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by I am free

Do good actions always result in pleasant experiences? I would think not...I think pain and suffering have immense value in spiritual growth. God has his own plans and what we may perceive as "pleasant" may not always be "good" for us.

Hello IAF - interesting post. Personally I would agree, as so many times things which I have seen as major problems or difficulties, have ended up turning around to be spiritually beneficial in the long-run. I don't think this means that all such experiences are going to turn out like this, but just that it's a possibility.

Originally Posted by I am free

Does reincarnation always "progress", never "regress"? Again, we are not sure how the laws of karma and reincarnation work actually, so it would just conjecture on our part. But then as someone pointed out earlier there is learning to be had in every incarnation. We may perceive the life of a worm as worthless, but who knows what God has planned?

At least according to the scriptures of Hinduism we can be born in more simple body after that of a human. I'm not going to reel off any passages here, but to quote my teacher's teacher :

Under the influence of material desire, the entity is born sometimes as a demigod, sometimes as a man, sometimes as a beast, as a bird, as a worm, as an aquatic, as a saintly man, as a bug. This is going on. And in all cases the living entity thinks himself to be the master of his circumstances, yet he is under the influence of material nature.


... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

IAF, you said,

"I had for years rejected reincarnation or accumulation of karmic effects as unscientific hogwash."

--> I like the idea of reincarnation becaue it makes absolutely perfect, logical sense to me. I can see no flaw in the concept whatsoever.

"She seemed to imply that I "deserved" all the bad the things happening to me because of my "evil deeds"."

--> we all decide how much bad karma to durn off in a lifetime. Apparently, you agreed to burn off more than usual. I congratulate you on your forsight.

"Do good actions always result in pleasant experiences?"

--> I say yes, although the results may not appear immediately.

"Does reincarnation always "progress", never "regress"?"

--> Yes. However, some people make so much bad karma, they are, in effect, losing progress.

"We may perceive the life of a worm as worthless, but who knows what God has planned?"

--> I disagree about the worthlessness of a worm. According to my belief system, even a worm will eventually become part of what is a human.

"What value is reincarnation if we dont remember our past mistakes?"

--> A lot of us have things in past lives we are not ready to remember. Each new life needs to be as much of a new start as possible.

"Ultimately freedom from this cycle of life and death depends on the conscious choices we make and on our ability to overcome the dispositions we are born with."

--> Exactly.

[cyberpi]

Are non-Christians Free to Accept Reincarnation?
Are Christians Free to Reject Reincarnation?

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Are non-Christians Free to Accept Reincarnation?
Are Christians Free to Reject Reincarnation?

of course.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

of course.

Is it not a simple exercise of logic to conclude:
non-Christians are Free to Reject Reincarnation, and
Christians are Free to Accept Reincarnation?

I guess the trick word in the question was the word 'Free', which implies a choice. The issue is whether the choice to accept / reject is available. If it is, then the definition of 'Christian' is severed from the belief. If 'Christian' is defined by whether or not a person believes in reincarnation, then there would be no freedom except whether to be one or not.

[Thomas]

Hi cyberpi —

You have touched on the nub of the issue.

As you so rightly point out, the question of whether or not a Christian is 'free' to accept any doctrine (and reincarnation is a doctrine, first and foremost) is determine a priori by the doctrine of Christianity ... not by the doctrine of reincarnation.

One might ask is a Christian free to accept the efficacy of animal sacrifice?

The answer would of course be 'no' — the doctrine of Christianity states emphatically that the Sacrifice of Christ institutes a new Covenant, a new 'contract' with God, in which it is understood that Christ's sacrifice was once, and for all.

(This is explored profoundly in the Letter to the Hebrews by the way, which was an Epistle written to a JudeoChristian community that seemed to be reverting to the Old Law as a means of 'augmenting' the New, the implication being the New is somehow insufficient to fulfill its promise.)

In the same way then, the Christian is free to accept the idea of reincarnation within the context of the Christian faith — and in this context the emphasis is upon resurrection, not reincarnation.

Christian doctrine teaches the resurrection of the flesh, in the witness of Christ's own resurrection, and later our own:
"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:52-53)

This resurrection will, technically, be a reincarnation — for this speaks of a physical resurrection, a carnal resurrection, not purely a spiritual one.

The radical difference is that we will be different, the resurrected and carnal body will be incorruptible and immortal:
"And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" (15:54-55).

This is not simply reincarnation, which denotes a repetition without essential change, indeed the very data of reincarnation is that which is reincarnated continues substantially and essentially as it did before, the only difference being contingent and accidental — reincarnation assumes a karmic trajectory which determines the circumstance of one's birth until one attains enlightenment and freedom from the round of reincarnation itself — reincarnation implies a continuation of the burden of illusion (the burden of sin, we would say, for 'sin' is the subjective aprehension of the objective 'illusion'), a continuation of the same state, either improving or deteriorating.

Thus the term reincarnation, by virtue of every doctrine the term implies, does not sufficiently embody the full meaning of the Christian term resurrection, which signifies the supernatural perfection of every dimension of our human nature — and thus arrives at the living presence of that which is fully and perfectly human, that is possessing a spirit, a soul and a body which, being perfect, is no longer subject to any mode or degree of privation.

(St Thomas points out that angels are higher than us because they are perfect according to their nature as purely spiritual beings, whereas the potential of man is to be higher than the angels because man alone possesses both a spiruality and a materiality according to his nature. The perfection of human nature therefore must encompass the material as well as the spiritual, rather than the idea of the abandonment or extinction of the material.)

Origen's speculations, which many have erroneously assumed to be in support of reincarnation, actually does no such thing. Origen was considering a particular aspect of Christian doctrine, suggesting the possibility that the resurrected body might again fall, not that the soul might reincarnate. The Church's answer was to the contrary, that which is incorruptible is, cannot, as the term implies, become subject to corruption. Here the 'Man of Steel' allowed his Platonic idealism to get the better of him — a very minor, and very human failing, one little error that should not be allowed to obscure the magnificence of his spiritual insight and genius. His work is a colossus of a truly orthodox theology.

The Church was very careful to draw a distinction between the man and the idea, and it was this one idea that was condemned in Council, under the name of 'Origenism', which was being promulgated by a particular monastic community in the East, and not the man. The text condemning Origen by name has since been shown to be a later interpolation, and dismissed.

Thanks again cyberpi, for bringing this point to light. I would hope you might regard this little essay as an exegetic exercise, an enconium (sorry - been reading a dictionary) by a student in praise of your insight.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Thank you, once again, for the straw man ... St. Thomas.

It does of course, remain to a certain extent, up to a bunch of presumptuous prelates to determine what is - and is not - `official' church doctrine ... so that those fearful and fretful of any real insight into these matters may dogmatize the dead-letter pronouncements.

And then, yep - sure enough, you've got your answer. Christians turn out NOT to be free to believe in Rebirth, even though Christ Himself, and His immediate followers, most certainly taught and believed it (or rather, understood it, and thus knew that after a certain point, insight into the nature of the Soul actually requires such belief).

Buddhists, of course, are FREE to believe that enlightenment is possible even for the salt of the earth, or for people who we know esoterically will require several hundred additional incarnations.

And every fool is free to accept that the planet Earth is actually FLAT.

What you're trying to do, Thomas, is a clever trick. Yet inasmuch as you are attempting to define another person's faith - even that of ONE SINGLE PERSON - and dictate to them just exactly what are and are not the ARTICLES of their faith ... you are out of line.

One CAN be Christian, in fact one can be at outstanding and a TRUE Christian - in the deepest sense of that word ... and also maintain belief in reincarnation, and even profess that only via repeated incarnation (combined with certain other requirements), may we hope to one day come to spiritual fulfilment upon this, or some other planet.

But then, you can play your mind control games, and knock yourself out trying to tell people what is and what is not actually `Christian' ... while plenty of folks more Christian than thou, know full well that we are all reincarnated - and that one's choice of religious belief matters NOT ONE WHIT as to whether or not we will `come back' after our sojourn between lives.

There are people, plenty of people, who quite simply KNOW that they have been reborn. And some of these are Christian - both by choice of a religious path, AND in terms of the quality of the life they lead, and the type of ethics which they personally practice (such as - the Golden Rule ... and by observing the `Law of Sowing and Reaping,' as Christ Himself referred to one aspect of the Law which governs our reincarnations).

How some individuals, who otherwise demonstrate that they have a semblance of intelligence, can read the Holy Bible, and see PLAIN EVIDENCE of the fact that Christ taught Rebirth (as the ONLY means for our Salvation - again, in combination with Cooperation with God's Laws) ... then turn around and DENY it, and fight so vehemently to try and divert people away from this doctrine which up to a third of the world's population sensibly accepts ... is beyond me.

All I can come up with, is that it is PURE EGO, pure excess of ZEAL (only partly well-intentioned, I'm afraid), and to a great extent, a control issue - a good, old-fashioned power struggle ...

... which makes me THANK GOD that I have plenty of Christian friends who do not let this NONSENSE and this narrow-mindedness get in their way. The Gnostic Christans, the Esoteric Christians, those with an interest in the Essenses, and even those who are simply reaching out and exploring the teachings of other mainstream world religions ... these are the people within whom much hope lies for the future of Christianty. It brings a smile to my face to know that these people do not let their head get in the way, and ruin the good dictates of the HEART.

I know a good deal about what I'm saying, for this blindness, which is a true curse - and a spiritual disease of sorts - can impair the esotericist, or the mystic, just as readily (or more so) as the adherent to mainstream exoteric teachings & traditions. I speak from experience ... for, in the words of spiteful little children, "it takes one to know one!"

Indeed, it does.

All that I would add, is that the spirit in which one wishes to share, and discuss such things as Reincarnation as it was (and is) taught within Christianity ... is every bit as important as the Knowledge, and the Wisdom, regarding Reincarnation itself. Some people are ready to explore this teaching, and have already made room to fold it in with their existing Faith ... and to rest upon the Foundation of their belief these invaluable teachings.

Others, we can clearly see, have not the room - nor the state of mental and spiritual readiness - to accept such teaching(s), and for them, it would only do harm to try and FORCE the issue. Better to live and let live, and allow such people to come to the Wisdom on their own. They will only CLAM UP, and vehemently, even bitterly deny that Christianity is compatible with these doctrines ... which some of us KNOW were actually taught.

All I will concede is this: I will NOT contest the point that the Church (especialy the Roman Catholic Church) has established - through century after century of wrangling, editing, arguing and heretic-burning - that certain things, like Reincarnation, are "not part of the Christian articles of faith." Nope, I realize fully that this is what the pompuous, presumptuous prelates have semi-unanimously decided. In the same way, I'm sure we could put together a nice educated body of today's brightest scientific minds, to establish once and for all that EXTRATERRESTIAL BEINGS DO NOT EXIST.

And ya know what? As far as those oh-so-enlightened scientists are concerned ... ETs don't exist! Period. END OF STORY.

In like manner, the Church has told us what we may, and what we may not believe, when it comes to the teachings of Christ Jesus and the early Apostles. And I pity those who are oh-so-eager to become converts that they would throw away common sense, that they would stare blankly past the written words on the pages of the Holy Bible (failing to interpret for THEMSELVES, when our dear St. Thomas is not handy to lend his services) ... and that they would jump on any bandwagon if it is what `Mother Church' has deemed appropriate, fit and right for their `spiritual salvation.'

DARE NOT TO QUESTION, and to ASK THINGS YOURSELF, for if ye do this, you will surely find that certain OMISSIONS have been made from the teachings and doctrines we have come to call `Christian' ... while also certain additions have been made, many of these every bit as sensible and apparent as the forgone conclusion that man is alone in the universe, with no other intelligent life out there - anywhere - save Earth Humanity!

yes, yes, yes, we KNOW what normally constitutes the Buddhist canon, and we have the great Mahabharata, and there are certainly the Four Gospels of the New Testament ... I do not dispute that.

But Christianity alone has well over 20,000 registered sects, and even if we focus on the four main divisions - Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Independent - I challenge anyone here to sit down at a table with representatives from these various traditions, and try to get them to come to a consensus as to what constitutues the true articles of the Christian Faith. The group will drive each other mad, and poor Thomas here, will eventually tear out every hair on his head, after going hoarse from cheering and rallying on the chap in the Roman Catholic quarter.

Is Buddhism so free of such important differences that in fact distinct schools do not need to exist? No ... there are various divisions among the Buddhists, and among the Hindus, the Muslims, and so forth. Does that mean that we cannot reach some points of agreement, and get on with it? No, it doesn't ...

... BUT, when an oversized EGO tries to move in, and tell us that we cannot believe in Rebirth and be `a TRUE Christian' ... or anything LIKE this, it's time for folks to speak out.

I may happen to BELIEVE in it, and I will tell you why, but I will NOT insist that others do, nor will I tell you that YOU MUST BELIEVE IN IT in order to be a true X, Y or Z (Buddhist, Hindu, etc.). Sure, MOST of the Eastern traditions teach it ... but when we get into this business of judging others and deciding just who is and who is not a `legitimate' whatever ... we are doing no less than playing God.

Gee, I guess God must have fallen down on the job, in order to have so many folks clamoring to fill the position.

And tell me ... dear St. Thomas ... those who insist on a belief in Rebirth, even without adequate PROOF for those such as yourself, who apparently `know better' ... will we have to spend 100 years in Hell, once you take over as God, or will you require us to burn and scream and cry mercy for 1,000?

At what point, after we have renounced our foolish faith, will you permit us to join the true Believers in Christ - those who REJECT Rebirth .... O Grand Inquisitor?

Or shall we be punished - ETERNALLY?

You're damn straight I'm glad it's not up to you.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

The issue is whether the choice to accept / reject is available.

It's available because most Christians don't have the ability to see what's on the other side of the Gate of Death- let alone follow a soul into rebirth.

For those who have the ability there is no argument. We cannot come to spiritual laws by reasoning alone.

the grand whys and wherefores are dictated come what may and have been put into place, along with everything else in the system. Folk may enjoy questioning the processes, and certainly must test each truth personally before coming to the 'peaceful round'.
-the Brothers

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If 'Christian' is defined by whether or not a person believes in reincarnation, then there would be no freedom except whether to be one or not.

It never was defined in that way. Certain elements in Churchianity might have mistakenly decided that reincarnation didn't occur- but what were their qualifications?

Christians are free beings, and if they have to wait and find these things out for themselves, well and good.

It is not theological nor philosophical it just plain is.

-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Dear Andrew ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thank you, once again, for the straw man ... St. Thomas.

May I at first point out something?

My post, to which you refer with such antipathy, was in fact inspired by cyberpi's argument, and was offered only as a panegyric in response to the point made.

It might surprise you to know I have no idea of cyberpi's confession. So, far from telling people what they should believe, I was hoping to offer my post as an endorsement of his perspective by my own contribution from my confession. In short, it seemed to me that here our beliefs coincide.

Lest anyone else be of doubt, it is not my intention to tell people what they should believe, but only to clarify for them what we believe. Hopefully, it will provide food for thought. At the very least, it might corect an erroneous assumption.

Let me repeat, I define only what I believe, and to the best of my ability I understand that belief to be in conformity with the mind of the Church, which I know you so despise, but which nevertheless is a matter of my free and informed choice. In so doing I choose to take my direction from Her. For that reason I understand and am willing to bear your spite towards me without rancour. I have earned my share, in the past. She 'in the very depths of Herself' is innocent.

If anyone else should share in that belief, it is because of Mother Church, not because of me.

As it was, I thought you had decided to let me go my own way? Should I see your intent as conditional on where I choose to state what Catholics choose to believe?

Am I then not allowed to express that belief? Are we not? We billions?

It would seem we are obliged to 'tick the right boxes' by your account before we can call ourselves Christian.

+++

The rest of your post is a general tirade of abuse directed against the Church to which I belong, and particularly vehement against me personally, to the point of accusing me of playing God, which I assume you will know I will find most offensive.

I see no necessity to drag everyone here through a reasoned rebuttal of your accusations. Suffice to say I find them base and unfounded, and if you have any material evidence to the contrary, please bring it forward.

In closing let me say I will not engage you in a futile slanging match. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" (George Santayana), and I have learnt the lessons of our past. Currently I think more than straw man I am your punchbag. So be it.

I shall try faithfully to follow the instruction of my Master, like the mindless fool, the whipped dog, you consider me to be:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet" (Matthew 10:14)

I go peace,

Thomas
(PS: Our Lord was quite specific in his choice of counsel, to shake the dust from your feet at someone was considered quite an insult in Judean society, a mark of contempt. On this occasion, over-ruled by His instruction to forgiveness, I shall follow the letter, but not the spirit, of His words. I am sure He will allow his poor servant that.)