How would you respond to this reasoning for believing in reincarnation?

[epan]

There’s actually pretty convincing evidence for the Resurrection if you look at the behavior of the Apostles. They went from abandoning Christ out of fear of execution to boldly preaching that He rose from the dead. That they got bolder after He was gone means something significant had to happen to cause this change in behavior, and the significant event that best fits is that He actually rose from the dead.

Interesting point.

 

[lerapt78]

(3) that his logic is obviously flawed, since if we’d already been through dozens of lives already, would there not be some people around today that were somewhere close to perfect? Look around. Do humans today act like folks that have had dozens of lives to work out their imperfections, or do they act like newbies to this planet, making the same dumb old mistakes that their predecessors made?

Good point. This brings up the question to me - is memory and awareness attached to reincarnation? To be specific, if there is no memory of the former life, why would humans become progressively more perfect with each cycle?

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Snarflemike and lerapt78 have hit the nail on the head.

If we are reincarnated to become more perfect and correct our flaws and not make the same mistakes as last time, then why can’t we remember what those flaws and mistakes are?

That is why the concept of reincarnation makes no sense.

The concept of reincarnation points to “infinite regress,” where there is no creator and no real beginning. The line of thinking just runs back without end. The logical problem with such thinking is, as has been pointed out, that for REincarnation to occur, there must have been an incarnation, which means there must have been a beginning.

And that is a second reason why the concept makes no sense.

I’d have to respond to such reasoning by pointing out the flaws in the logic, as above.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

I was listening to this radio show and the speaker was a big believer in reincarnation. He stated that it was illogical to believe that you only lived once because we are very imperfect beings.

To him you needed to be born multiple time to work on different imperfections to finally achieve I guess his version of heaven.

I had heard of reincarnation before and ‘learning’ during each ‘life’ but never that reasoning. I agree that we are very flawed but how would you respond to this line of reasoning?

He needs to clarify who is helping him in his quest of perfection from imperfection since it does not belong to an agent that is imperfect to perfect itself according to it’s form, it needs the act of an external agent who is greater in being and perfection to perfect it. It seems, illogically, that he is placing himself as the cause of perfection yet he admits being imperfect. Smells like the doctrines of salvation in pelagianism, basically removing God as the source and cause of salvation and placing man in capacity of attaining salvation without aid, another spin off of Gnosticism. This new age movement prides itself on intellectualism but fails to display it when a philosopher comes around to debunk their theories so they hide in the smoke of mysticism when pressed for an intelligent answer.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-four-six-eight-who-do-you.html good article that debunks the entire theory of reincarnation by demonstrating through philosophy of mind, highly recommend it.

 

[lerapt78]

^^^ Another good point - without guidelines, how would one know what perfection requires and toward what they should be striving? Do they just stumble upon perfection by accident? That would mean perfection is fluid, and changes respectively with each individual. (Unless of course, we’re saying that the tenets of Bhudda are what need to be followed. He was not nor claimed to be a God. So one man, not divinely inspired, figured out what human perfection is?)

And, if Siddhartha reached enlightment and was then able to glean what was necessary for others to reach it and then leave instructions for the rest of us, this must mean that Nirvana is not a permanent state, and that he was able to leave Nirvana in order to write or preach his advice. This is another situation that doesn’t make sense to me logically - why would one be able to leave Nirvana if the entire purpose of reaching that state is to not have live in the earthly realm any longer? Is it possible to jump in and out of Nirvana?

I’m certainly no expert on Bhuddism, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable can clarify these questions.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

If I understand what I have read…One school teaches that one should strive to become an “arhat,” which is someone who has achieved full enlightenment. The Mahayana school says that those who wish to become buddhas themselves may postpone Nirvana, becoming “boddhisattvas,” who help others reach full enlightenment before they themselves accept it.

I get the impression that those who have acheived full enlightenment generally withdraw from the world, since they are not going to be reborn. Boddhisattvas choose to be reborn, thus postponing nirvana.

As to whether Nirvana is a state of being only or a place, or both, I’m a little fuzzy. My best guess is to compare it to the Beatific Vision. Saints who come to earth to help someone are still in the Beatific Vision; the difference being that boddhisattvas are reborn in order to do this and saints are not.

But please don’t take my word for it. I haven’t read Buddhist religious books in several years now and might be confusing stuff.

 

[rossum]

Another good point - without guidelines, how would one know what perfection requires and toward what they should be striving? Do they just stumble upon perfection by accident?

There have been many Buddhas. Siddhartha Gautama Sakya, the historical Buddha, was merely the latest of a long line. Each Buddha rediscovers the path and preaches it. Others follow that path, using the Buddha’s advice. Eventually the Buddhist religion will disappear until a new Buddha rediscovers it. The next Buddha will be Maitreya, the future Buddha.

That would mean perfection is fluid, and changes respectively with each individual.

Each individual finds their own path. Each of us is different, so our individual paths differ. There are a wide range of options in Buddhism, from the cut-down versions, like Zen or Theravada, to the ceremonial versions like Shingon or Tibetan. You can have no philosophy, as with Pure Land, or overdose on it with the Madhyamika. All those paths work for different people. There are many different paths up the mountain, yet all those paths lead to the same high peak.

And, if Siddhartha reached enlightment and was then able to glean what was necessary for others to reach it and then leave instructions for the rest of us, this must mean that Nirvana is not a permanent state, and that he was able to leave Nirvana in order to write or preach his advice.

The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died at age 80. He was simultaneously in the world and in nirvana for 45 years. Nirvana is not separate from this world, it is part of this world:

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

It is an error to think of nirvana as being like one of the heavens, something separate from the world that you only attain after death. Enlightenment is attained while still living in the same imperfect world as everyone else. Buddhism has heavens, and hells, but none of them are nirvana.

rossum

 

[PJM]

=tabycat;9409129]That is what I’ve always wonderd: Way were we incarnated the first time? What imperfections caused the first time?

“catholic???”

PLEASE KNOW that reincarnation is a Heathen MYTH!

It is opposed to the Bible; God’s promise and ought not be given any serious consideration or discussion. AMEN!

 

[PJM]

=stanncie;9409429]I have asked myself this question as well. I also think it’s similar to the question atheists ask 'why would God create humans if he knew they would fall?

Here is WHY…

God is 'PERFECT" Love; and God Created [with absolutely NO ABSOLUTE NEED TO DO SO] humanity so that.

“Perfect Love” MUST BE FREELY GIVEN in order to be “perfect”

Isa.43 Verses 7**and **21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

Isa.6 Verse 8: “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

Among the MANY BILLIONS [LITERALLY] OF CREATED THINGS;

ONLY ONE

ONLY GOD’S HUMANITY CAN CHOOE TO

RATIONALIZE AND TO LOVE!

Therefore we MUST:thumbsup:

God God Desires it

BUT
God does not command it

our “God” like attributes of

"mind:; “intellect” and “FREEWILL”

Have as there purpose precisely what Isaiah taught above:getholy:

God Bless,
Pat /PJM

 

[FinalRepentance]

I was listening to this radio show and the speaker was a big believer in reincarnation. He stated that it was illogical to believe that you only lived once because we are very imperfect beings.

To him you needed to be born multiple time to work on different imperfections to finally achieve I guess his version of heaven.

I had heard of reincarnation before and ‘learning’ during each ‘life’ but never that reasoning. I agree that we are very flawed but how would you respond to this line of reasoning?

It’s a pathetic excuse for an explanation. All physical life forms are imperfect because we are still evolving and will never cease doing so. That’s why we multiply, because part of our incompletion is dying.

 

[Contarini]

I was listening to this radio show and the speaker was a big believer in reincarnation. He stated that it was illogical to believe that you only lived once because we are very imperfect beings.

To him you needed to be born multiple time to work on different imperfections to finally achieve I guess his version of heaven.

I had heard of reincarnation before and ‘learning’ during each ‘life’ but never that reasoning. I agree that we are very flawed but how would you respond to this line of reasoning?

Paul Griffiths’ talk “Purgatory as Reincarnation” argues that the Catholic understanding of purgatory is a form of reincarnation (a term he uses in a broad sense). Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be available online anymore–you can read a summary here.

Edwin

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I was listening to this radio show and the speaker was a big believer in reincarnation. He stated that it was illogical to believe that you only lived once because we are very imperfect beings.

To him you needed to be born multiple time to work on different imperfections to finally achieve I guess his version of heaven.

I had heard of reincarnation before and ‘learning’ during each ‘life’ but never that reasoning. I agree that we are very flawed but how would you respond to this line of reasoning?

Well that’s a nice little theory. But how does he intend to prove that?

As Christians, we don’t need reincarnation, because we achieve perfection - Deification - through the Holy Sacrifice of our risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit’s guiding light in our lives. So we have the fast-track. No need for reincarnation, plain and simple.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

That is what I’ve always wonderd: Way were we incarnated the first time? What imperfections caused the first time?

Well from a Buddhist perspective, if I am correct (and please anyone feel free to correct me), incarnation itself is part of the error to be rectified. Our coming to this world and to this life was a mistake, and therefore, we need to reach Nirvana where there is a total restoration of our position before incarnation.

 

[meltzerboy]

I was listening to this radio show and the speaker was a big believer in reincarnation. He stated that it was illogical to believe that you only lived once because we are very imperfect beings.

To him you needed to be born multiple time to work on different imperfections to finally achieve I guess his version of heaven.

I had heard of reincarnation before and ‘learning’ during each ‘life’ but never that reasoning. I agree that we are very flawed but how would you respond to this line of reasoning?

Orthodox Judaism, particularly Hasidism, does not rule out reincarnation as a means of achieving a greater understanding of Torah as well as finishing important but incomplete activities here on Earth. Judaism does not think that belief in reincarnation necessarily contradicts what may follow, namely some time spent in Purgatory (Gehinnom) and then, hopefully, going to heaven.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Orthodox Judaism, particularly Hasidism, does not rule out reincarnation as a means of achieving a greater understanding of Torah as well as finishing important but incomplete activities here on Earth. Judaism does not think that belief in reincarnation necessarily contradicts what may follow, namely some time spent in Purgatory (Gehinnom) and then, hopefully, going to heaven.

What is their explanation of Enoch then if the means is dependent on the Torah?

Makes me wonder what philosophy of mind they promote, has to be substance/Cartesian dualism.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

Hebrews 9:27-28

And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

 

[Contarini]

Well from a Buddhist perspective, if I am correct (and please anyone feel free to correct me), incarnation itself is part of the error to be rectified. Our coming to this world and to this life was a mistake, and therefore, we need to reach Nirvana where there is a total restoration of our position before incarnation.

Not really. Nirvana is too ineffable to talk about a “position before incarnation.” And it’s not a “mistake” so much as just something that happens–attachments form and develop consciousnesses.

Edwin

 

[lerapt78]

If I understand what I have read…One school teaches that one should strive to become an “arhat,” which is someone who has achieved full enlightenment. The Mahayana school says that those who wish to become buddhas themselves may postpone Nirvana, becoming “boddhisattvas,” who help others reach full enlightenment before they themselves accept it.

I get the impression that those who have acheived full enlightenment generally withdraw from the world, since they are not going to be reborn. Boddhisattvas choose to be reborn, thus postponing nirvana.

Yes, that answers my question. Thank you.

It is an error to think of nirvana as being like one of the heavens, something separate from the world that you only attain after death. Enlightenment is attained while still living in the same imperfect world as everyone else. Buddhism has heavens, and hells, but none of them are nirvana.

rossum

Very informative, thank you also. Would it be correct to say that Nirvana is not supernatural?

 

[ebonykawai]

Rebirth and reincarnation have nothing to do with being “imperfect” somehow. It has to do with how our consciousness is pulled to take another birth by our own desire to do just that. We all have the physical ability to be with (what many call) God, but choose not to because of unfinished business we think we have left on earth. In buddhism and also in yoga, we try to get to a place of non-grasping so that our consciousness does not want to come back to earth, but stays with God.

 

[rossum]

Very informative, thank you also. Would it be correct to say that Nirvana is not supernatural?

All descriptions of nirvana are false. Remember also that “natural” and “supernatural” are categories from Western philosophy which do not always exactly match the roughly equivalent concepts in Buddhist philosophy. The gods, who are supernatural, may attain nirvana. Humans, who are not supernatural, may attain nirvana.

Is nirvana natural? No.

Is nirvana supernatural? No.

Is nirvana both natural and supernatural? No.

Is nirvana neither natural nor supernatural? No.

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

• Udana 8.3

Nirvana is enlightenment.

rossum