Hi all...I read a great book recently called "A little light on the spiritual laws" By Diana Cooper. In one of the chapters she claimed, and I quote.... "Roman Emperor Constantine the Great along with his mother had all references to reincarnation deleted from the New Testament in A.D 325. In A.D 553 in Constantinople, the Emperor Justinian confirmed this action and declared reincarnation a heresy, fearing that the understanding of the sacred law of reincarnation was weakening the power of the growing church."I did a search on this and came up with a quite informative site worth checking out.http://reluctant-messenger.com/main.htmWhats your thoughts on reincarnation?Regards... Bindi
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Most Christian apologists maintain that the concept of reincarnation is not described in Biblical texts. They maintain that the verses that appear to support the idea of reincarnation are interpreted from the context of a reincarnation worldview and not from context of the Biblical Jewish/Christian worldview.
This might be best understood when one considers the popularity that Hinduism and Buddhism have gained in some circles of the West. In many cases, they do so by claiming that the verses that appear to support the idea of reincarnation are taken out of context, while apparently applying a different standard to verses that appear to deny the possibility. Unfortunately, the practice of taking verses out of context (and sometimes, stringing unrelated verses together in a way that makes them appear related) to prove a favored belief or disprove someone else's belief is nothing new to Christianity, or to the opponents of Christianity; according to some, this technique has already been applied in composition of the New Testament writings itself.
Contemporary Christian thought objects to reincarnation because it is not seen compatible with the traditional biblical view of man and the idea of salvation through Jesus.
Some Christians, though, interpret Jesus' death on the cross as providing believers the opportunity to grow towards salvation despite personal imperfections, rather than ensuring instant salvation for all believers after death. Reincarnation may simply delay a person's ultimate destiny - most religions that believe in reincarnation do not believe that a person continues to reincarnate indefinitely.
Origen
Origen, an early Christian theologian who lived during the third century, wrote that "The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous existence" (De Principiis). This belief was not unique to Origen; early Christians believed that the soul exists prior to the conception and birth of a person, a belief that many then-popular variants of Greek philosophy accepted. However, this does not in and of itself imply reincarnation, cf. the Mormon view of the "beforelife" of the soul. In AD 553, more than three hundred years after Origen's death, the Emperor Justinian issued an edict against Origen, whose writings had by then become very divisive, and convened the Second Council of Constantinople. This Council issued "The Anathemas Against Origen". The first sentence reads, "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."
Some see the Anathemas Against Origen not only suppressing the early Christian teachings within the Church, but also any teaching supportive of views on the pre-existence of the soul. Anyone publicly espousing such beliefs could be reprimanded, and, if he persisted, excommunicated from the Church.
The decision of the Second Council of Constantinople regarding the pre-existence of souls has never been disputed since by traditional Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians and mainstream denominations.
Quote from Origen:
"It can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body... then it is beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things their bodies are once more annihilated. They are ever vanishing and ever reappearing."
It is strongly debated wether origen believed in reincarnation or not.
Another Quote from Origen:
"[Scripture says] ?And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" and he said, "I am not"' [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ?If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come' [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ?Are you Elijah?'??I am not'? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John's birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah" (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).
[edit]History of Canonical and extra-biblical writings
By exponents of New Age the theory has been voiced, that reincarnation is not incompatible with Christianity, but was suppressed by the church (or the pope or the emperor Constantine) in order to increase the power and influence of the church. According to this theory, the texts that offered the greatest acceptance of Roman Pagan doctrine were made part of biblical canon; those that tended to reduce the influence of the church and were offensive to Roman Pagans were declared as heresy.
Other arguments for this theory are that after Constantine's Edict of Milan in AD 313, which made Christianity a tolerated religion, Christianity became tainted with elements of Roman Paganism. Reincarnation was offensive to Roman Pagans, as were other early Christian concepts. The Roman church began to select acceptable doctrines based in part on what would cause the church (and its leaders) to have the greatest influence in society. If someone believed that they had multiple lifetimes to gain favor with God, they might not be as inclined to obey the church teachings, or to serve the church leaders. On the other hand, if people could be convinced that they had but one lifetime to "get it right", and that eternal punishment in hell awaited those who failed to heed the teachings of the church, they would be more inclined to do whatever the church leaders expected of them, including supporting the church financially. It therefore would not come as any surprise that a church that had strayed from the original teachings of Jesus would emphasize doctrines that increased the amount of control that the church had over its members.
The majority of Christian and secular historian scholarship maintains that it is not historically justifiable that verses regarding reincarnation could have been removed from the Bible. The first universally acknowledged authorities in Christianity since the time of the apostles were the ecumenical councils, the first of which took place in 325. Various groups contended their decisions for most of the century. A single-handed decision of the bishop of Rome accepted by the whole of Christianity in the first centuries is not seen by apologists to be likely - even his addition to the Nicene creed (the Filioque) in the late first millennium, is fiercely contended by the Orthodox churches until today. Moreover, the findings of textual criticism and the many early fragments of the Bible that have surfaced during the last two centuries lead many to believe it extremely unlikely that anything of importance was ever removed from the Bible.
There are no known surviving references explicitly describing reincarnation or stating a belief in reincarnation in the Christian mainstream writings of the early church period. There also do not appear to be any surviving writings explicitly characterizing the belief in reincarnation as a heresy, or condemning such a belief, even in the voluminous writings against Gnosticism. Other beliefs that were contrary to the orthodox views of the church, such as Arianism, were condemned rather than ignored or censored. The absence of any surviving references to reincarnation causes some who question whether there was ever such a doctrine in Christianity to characterize the belief that there previously was as a conspiracy theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:26/06/2007 04:25:17)
Whether or not there are/were any biblical references that support the concept of reincarnation matters not.
Those that want to make up a whole cosmology around their concepts of reincarnation are often believing in stuff that can't be verified. Speculation about an afterlife can be healthy and helpful, but the danger comes when the speculation solidifies into rigid beliefs and dogma. These can then become a security blanket or mind-control tool that fogs our thoughts.
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Today, more than half the people living on planet Earth believe in reincarnation. The concept of "many lives" or "past lives" is ages older than Christianity. Reincarnation does not require an angry God to judge and punish us after we pass on. Rather, this system of belief tells us that God loves us unconditionally. It goes on to say that, after the death of our physical body, we are the ones who will evaluate our own thoughts and actions. Then we will set new goals and challenges for our next life, especially those which attempt to heal past negative actions (karma) with love. This entire process is done with free will. In other words, karma is not a punishment - it is an opportunity to bring our past negative actions with others into loving alignment, life after life, until we get all of it balanced.
Many people believe in the Christian one-life concept. In this system of belief, an angry God punishes us if we have been bad and can send us to hell for eternity if he so chooses... or he sends us to heaven if we've been good. We've got one chance to live and get it right... a very alarming and frustrating thought for many.
Who's right... after all, there are many people are betting an awful lot on these beliefs.
I feel it is important to mention a few things as background for this web page. It has to do with the origin of the Bible and what we know about the Old and New Testament. This is crucial because there are many people today who take things for granted about this book without digging into its history...
The Holy Bible, as we know it today, can be traced back to the fourth century A.D.
During that time, the emperor Constantine formed a council of historians and scholars (the Council of Nice).
The purpose of that council was to take all the loosely organized religious and historic traditions of the time and simplify them.
As a result of that council, many sacred documents concerning ancient mysteries and Jesus' teachings were modified, edited or secreted away for a privileged few (where they remain to this day).
The council produced a single document in A.D. 325... known today as the Holy Bible.
Many documents and historical writings have been edited out of our modern Bible... in addition to those deemed inappropriate by the Catholic Church in the fourth century.
In essence, much of today' Bible is someone else's version of what they want you to believe... and many fear-driven dogma's have resulted because of it.
Who invented the "we only have one life" dogma anyway? When did it happen? Why did it happen? God didn't invent it. It certainly wasn't Christ's idea.
Over the past 9 plus years of my life I have read well over 300 metaphysical/new age books. From time to time, I would come across statements explaining that, many centuries ago, reincarnation was a widely accepted belief... even when Jeshua (Christ) walked the Earth 2000 years ago. There is solid evidence that some of the early philosophers and Christian fathers and saints believed in and supported that concept.
Who were some of these people?
- Plato (582-507 B.C.) - Origen (185-254 A.D.) - St. Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.) - St. Gregory (257-332 A.D.) - St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)
Note: please visit their references to reincarnation at the end of this article (1)
I had been raised a catholic and was taught from an early age that we only have one life to get it all right or there was hell to pay (literally). The church asked me to trust them on this one... they had all the answers and wanted me to place blind faith in their teachings.
However, during the early years of my spiritual awakening, I began to wonder who invented the one-life concept. Up to that point in my life, I blindly believed that religious law. Then one day I wondered where that dogma really comes from. The easy answer was "from my Christian religion." But that wasn't good enough for me. That led to tougher questions such as... at what time in religious history did the one-life law originate? Who came up with this teaching? Why did half the people on this planet believe in something totally foreign to me ... reincarnation? Most importantly, who was right? Today, over one billion Christians on this planet have put their blind faith in this teaching. Can you imagine that... they have taken someone else's word for it.
As I began to dig into this puzzle more and more, I suspected that the answer could be found somewhere between the time Jeshua died (33 A.D.) and 600 A.D. During that time, the Christian religion was born, organized, defined, politicized and "dogmatized." All of this information is available in the libraries and has been well researched over the years. Why don't we hear more about it? The leaders of Western religions don't want you to know this.
It first started with James (the brother of Jeshua), Paul, the early church fathers and others. As a teacher of righteousness, Jesus' seeds of profound spiritual wisdom and universal truths were given to many people. After his death, some of those people brought those seeds to local and foreign lands. Many religious groups or sects were formed based upon his teachings. There was a lot of opinion and disagreement on what to do with them and how they were to be interpreted. One major offshoot was the formation of the Christian (Roman Catholic) religion. Throughout those first 500 years, other man-made laws were added to those that Jesus first taught. After His death, each new generation reinterpreted those original teachings... then they were edited and embellished for many different reasons. Part of His incredible wisdom was put into the New Testament. But, the earliest existing copy we have of that document is dated to the 4th century, almost 400 years after Christ's appearance. We have nothing earlier in writing except bits of pieces here and there found on various ancient parchments.
Sometime during the first 600 years of early Christianity, several major events happened...
Early references to reincarnation in the New Testament had been deleted in the fourth century by Emperor Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
In the sixth century, the Second Council of Constantinople ruled that reincarnation was a false belief punishable by persecution and death.
At the same time, the Church and the Roman Emperors knew that the concept of prior lives would weaken and undermine their power over their followers since it would give these people too much time to achieve salvation... the threat of a Judgment Day and punishment by an angry God at the end of one's life, worked a lot better to control the masses.
The Roman Catholic church realized it would have more power and influence by becoming not only a religious organization, but a political one. As a result, the church formed powerful alliances with the Roman emperors.
Why did the church form these alliances with the Roman emperors? Because the emperors wanted to make sure that the people didn't riot and an organized religion that controlled the masses through fear could help to accomplish that.
Why did the emperors want to make sure there were no rebellions by the masses? Because the wanted an uninterrupted flow of taxes.
Listed below is an excellent historical explanation of what happened during those early times regarding reincarnation and the one life dogma. It was given by Nick Bunick who wrote a book (see below) that, in part, deals with this issue. Again, it is offered not to offend but to make one wonder and think. Ultimately, please form your own conclusions.
"At the time that Jeshua walked the earth, the Judaic religion had three different sects. One was the Sadducees and they professed they did not know what happened to the soul or the spirit upon death. The other two sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. They absolutely believed in transmigration of the soul, what we call reincarnation.
In the fourth century A.D., Constantine was the emperor of Rome. He appointed a pope named Damascus. In conjunction with that, they founded the Council of Nicaea and made an effort to purge everything out of the Scriptures of the New Testament that spoke of reincarnation as they were translating the Scriptures from Aramaic into Latin, their contemporary language. [Encyclopedia Britannica says the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, '... is an event of the highest importance in the history of Christianity. It was the first attempt to fix the criteria of Christian orthodoxy, by means of definitely formulated pronouncements on the content of Christian belief...' - SP]
Then, in the fifth century A.D., when Justinian was the emperor, he called together the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Council met in Constantinople with the specific purpose of condemning the idea of reincarnation, committing themselves, from that time on, to always speak of life being one experience on earth, that redemption and salvation must take place during this one lifetime.
Pope Vigilius refused to participate in that meeting because he totally disagreed with their trying to change the entire teachings of hundreds and hundreds of years, teachings that did believe in reincarnation, and more importantly, the teachings of Jeshua.
I do not think it was done maliciously. I believe it was probably a decision of mortal people at that time who had good intent, and felt they could better influence the people who were attending their churches by making them believe they must receive redemption and salvation in this one lifetime. But unfortunately, in doing so, they changed dramatically the true messages of Jeshua, and that is that we are all part of God, and being part of God, we are all immortal. We do come back in human bodies in order to experience the material world so that we may become, through the experiences in the material world, pure again. I want to emphasize again, I do not believe it was malicious on the part of the decision-makers at that time. I feel their decision was based on what they thought was in the best interests of the people."
During the first 300 years of the early church, reincarnation was widely accepted by many of the early Christians, including Origen, whom the Encyclopedia Britannica hailed as "the most prominent of the church fathers with the possible exception of Saint Augustine." In addition, the Gnostic gospel, Pitis Sophia, quotes Jesus as saying that..."Souls are poured from one into another of different bodies of the world."
Leading up to the fourth century, the church evolved into an institution that was ripe for manipulation. It was during this time that the Church-State alliance was born with the sole purpose of achieving blind-faith dependence upon the church by the masses. Belief in reincarnation tended to produce individuals who were more self reliant, freethinking and not very controllable. The church did not want that... and hasn't wanted it up to this very day.
When was the one-life dogma invented? Sometime around 379-395 A.D., Constantine, his successor Theodosious and the early church fathers created new teachings. They said that we were separate from God, we only had one life to live, when we died we either went to heaven or hell and that the only way to save ourselves was through the church.
In the year 553 A.D., Emperor Justinian called for the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople with the express purpose of condemning reincarnation once and for all. Here's how it was done. A total of 15 Anathemas were created. Think of them as condemnations. The first anathema was "if anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of the souls (reincarnation), and shall assert monstrous restoration which follows from it, let him be anathema." From that point forward reincarnation was forbidden from Christian beliefs. Individuals who chose to practice reincarnation were persecuted. The church's campaign of terror and slaughter lasted until the 13th century when the last vestige of reincarnation was wiped out... and it has remained so ever since.
Why was reincarnation banned? Simple. Under the concept of reincarnation God does not punish anyone. We are the ones who are responsible for the choices we make. We are also the ones who will decide how any of our negative actions will be healed with love during a future life. This belief system does not require a formal church with doctrines, dogmas and donations. In essence, if someone believed in reincarnation, that individual would not need anyone to serve as an intermediary between himself or herself and our Source. God is within everyone.
It's easy to see why the early church and future popes condemned this belief. There would be no reason to follow their own man-made religion, which was based upon the dogma that God judges, punishes, heaven and hell, etc. And, according to their self-serving teachings, one could miraculously be saved from all of this through the church, especially through generous donations. Over the centuries, these dogmas of fear and guilt have made people totally dependent upon the church. Sadly, it's been that way ever since. Very soon this form of control will end.
One last thing while we're on this general subject. It concerns the divinity of Christ. This dogma states that Jeshua was totally different than us, that He was the son of God and, because of his unique divinity, was separate from us. Who invented this belief? When did it come into existence?... sometime around 325 A.D. when the emperor Constantine ruled over a vast kingdom of millions of people.
During that 4th century, many changes were added/made to the early Christian beliefs by the emperor and the church fathers. The Nicaean Council that formed during this time, declared that Jeshua was a direct part of God and that we were separate from our Source. That is when this belief was invented... again by man. This is not meant to diminish the teachings of love and forgiveness that Jesus brought to us during his visit to Earth. He was a magnificent teacher and healer, among the greatest to walk this planet. But, we are all sons and daughters of God. There is no separation. Even Jeshua said in the scriptures that we would do greater things than he did.
There is a book in print today entitled "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation." It was written by Ian Stevenson, M.D. during the 1960's. At the time of that writing Dr. Stevenson was a psychiatrist with the University of Virginia Medical College and had investigated nearly 600 cases of possible reincarnation. The 20 cases presented in his book was a representative sample from the 600.
What makes some of his case histories so compelling is the detailed descriptions given by the individuals studied... especially those of young children (some of whom spontaneously began speaking in a foreign language related to their past life). Dr. Stevenson states... "The case usually starts when a small child of two to four years of age begins talking to his parents or siblings of a life in another time and place." Names of countries, towns, addresses, names of brothers, sisters, parents, descriptions of the homes lived in, etc., etc. were collected. Then Dr. Stevenson went to the places described and verified what the children and others said. There was no way the individuals studied could know such things, especially the young children.
And here is another amazing thing. The prestigious American Medical Association reviewed one of Dr. Stevenson's earlier books on ten meticulously investigated cases of reincarnation specifically from India. They said... "In regard to reincarnation, he [Stevenson] has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases from India, cases in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds." - Journal of the American Medical Association.
Last but not least there is another book on reincarnation recently authored by another psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Weiss...
"Many Lives, Many Masters" by Brian Weiss, M.D.
An excellent book that has sold more than 2 million copies and has been translated into 26 different languages. Dr. Weiss is an eminent psychiatrist who was startled one day by a patient of his who began to remember previous lives while under hypnosis. He was so impressed by what happened he decided to go public with it after years of hesitancy. If you are interested in the phenomenon of past lives this is the book to start with.
(1) Referenced writings on reincarnation:
"Know that if you become worse you will go to the worse souls, and if better, to the better souls; and in every succession of life and death you will and suffer what like must fitly suffer at the hands of like"
Plato - (582 - 507 B.C.), The Republic
"Every soul... comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of it previous life. Its place in this world as a vessel appointed to honor or dishonor, is determined by its previous merits or demerits. Its work in this world determines its place in the world which is to follow this."
Origen - De Principiis (early church father) (185 - 254 A.D.)
"We were in being long before the foundation of the world; we existed in the eye of God, for it is our destiny to live in Him. We are reasonable creatures of the Divine Word; therefore, we have existed from the beginning, for in the beginning was the word."
St. Clement of Alexandria - (150 - 220 A.D.)
"... it is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth, it must be accomplished in future lives."
St. Gregory - (257 - 332 A.D.)
"The message of Plato, the purest and the most luminous of all philosophy, has at last scattered the darkness of error, and now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think they lived together, or rather, since so long a period of time separates them - that Plato was born again in Plotinus."
St. Augustine - (354 - 430 A.D.
Referenced Books:
"In God's Truth" Nick Bunick "Born Again and Again" John Van Auken "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" Ian Livingston, M.D. "Many Lives, Many Masters" Brian Weiss, M.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Reply to : bindiBindi,It's one thing to read second and third-hand opinions on a given subject, and altogether another to read the source documents themselves. If more people did the latter (even if in English translation), then fewer people would be suckered in by absolute nonsense presented with a very thin veneer as historical scholarshipMy musings,Ian
Hi SOTT1....
So where does one obtain the source documents from to read for themselves? And who, apart from you, has the right to say what is nonsence and what isnt? It is a known fact that the scriptures have been tampered with quite alot throughout the ages to suit the leaders of the day. History confirms this. Who is to say whether reincarnation really was part of the bible originally??? I'm not saying I'm a believer in reincarnation. Its just an interesting topic to look into and obviously brings quite a bit of attention as far as discussing it. I admire your wisdom sott but you really do seem to come across as an expert on absolutely everything and your 'word' should be taken as gospel without question!
Regards... Bindi
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610 Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
(Date Posted:26/06/2007 17:34:40)
Reply to : bindi
Reply to : dogmafree .... Another 'cut and paste' effort brought to you by Bindi!CHRISTIANITY AND REINCARNATIONWHO INVENTED THE"ONE-LIFE" BELIEF ANYWAY?By Nickwww.fromthestars.com
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." David Brooks, The Necessity of Atheism.
Reincarnation is just whacked on so many levels. I'm fairly sure if it were true then I'm coming back as a cane toad, or was a cane toad. Before the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell developed there evolved a belief in "transmigration", the idea that after death the spirit would return in another body. It's just another way of 'hoping' we'll escape into a new life when this body wears out in our desperate desire to keep on living... sigh... I can relate. I'm 36 next week and I wish I could reincarnate or go to heaven.
I think Christopher Hitchens said it best, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
-------------------------------------------------------------- Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:26/06/2007 19:44:53)
OK here goes.....
I'll try to present some concepts that I have learned from some buddhist sources that I find myself fairly comfortable with. The reincarnation that they refer to must be appreciated within the greater context of some of these principles. But firstly, consider this....
Most of us would agree that physicists have concluded that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Rather, it can change from one form to another. So, fuel may be burned, changing into heat, gases and other forms of energy etc. Generally this is a universal principle that we recognise as a given. Agreed?
Now when we contemplate a human life, we talk about being born and then dying. So, many of us have the notion that when we are 'born' we begin to exist after having been nothing. Then when we die, we believe that from being something (alive) we become nothing (dead). The buddhists would consider these notions absurd!
OK, we accept that before birth, we were there as a foetus, but before conception, well we think we never existed. Is this in harmony with the physical principles we have accepted? Think about it....
Before we were conceived, we were already there in the cells and DNA of our parents, just as our offspring are already there in our cells. There's a sort of recycling going on! We accept that our bodies consist of elements that are recycled...ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Is it likely that our spirit or soul is any different? I assert that there is a kind of universal consciousness. From this, a soul is formed and manifests together with the entity that is the developing unborn child, and continues through all sorts of energetic cycles through a lifetime. At around the time of death of the body, the soul returns to the soup of universal energy. It doesn't cease. It changes form.
A core belief of buddhists is that of impermanence. "All is transitory"! They see that everything is in a state of transition. (The world has its seasons, we grow older and die etc) Many of us wrestle with this principle, wanting to hold on to things as they are, resisting change. This is a silly and futile struggle that many of us indulge in. Yet, if things were not impermanent,they could not exist. If we could stay young and not grow old, life would not exist as we know it. We tend to be very attached to our 'self', as though we are separate from everything else. Buddhists teach non-attachment, or 'going-with-the-flow' if you like. Experiencing life outside of self is generally the pursuit of many disciplines, and is referred to in many ways (enlightenment etc).
So, a seed is sown and becomes a small plant, growing into a tree, flourishes and ultimately passes on to return to the ground. We go through the same transitions both physically and in our consciousness. This is where a kind of reincarnation is feasable..........
As our consciousness leaves the body, it will have stored a lifetime of energies, great joys and sorrows, emotional attachments and maybe unfulfilled dreams etc. It has been suggested that if there are strong residual energies that have not been resolved in the lifetime, these energies may continue to seek expression in another form. (The Tibetans have fairly sophisticated theories about these processes that are interesting, to say the least)! Anyways, it can be considered that the forming new life may become the new 'host' of this 'unfinished business' and form a basis of the evolving soul.
Many accounts of memories of 'past lives' and a sense of children being 'old souls' are regularly experienced. These may be seen to support the scenario I've described.
Does this mean that it is the same person that is moving from life to life? I don't think so! If we light a candle, and transfer the flame from the candle to a succession of other candles, is the flame the same or different? So, I regard the concept of reincarnation as a kind of recycling of that great energy of which we all consist. You could call that God or Prana or Qi..... it is the universal life-force that is in every cell of every thing that exists. We are all just another temporary form and manifestation of that great spirit. The spanner in the spokes of our perception is the self identity that we delude ourselves with.
Thinking about it,this is very consistent with how the rest of the universe works. The oceans evaporate, form clouds, precipitates, as water it supports life as it returns to the ocean. Everything else goes through a metamorphasis in one form or another. If we believe we have a spirit or soul, why on earth would it be any different? The thing that makes us unique as a species is the delusion of our self-importance. Do you see a caterpiller panicking as it is transformed into its next manifestation? Do you see the leaf freaking out as it falls from the tree to become nutrients for the earth? Can you see the folly of attachment to this life, and the desperate beliefs we come up with in the hope that we can preserve it, and live forever etc?
So, some food for thought?!
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610 Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 03:34:52)
Reply to : dogmafree
Before we were conceived, we were already there in the cells and DNA of our parents, just as our offspring are already there in our cells. There's a sort of recycling going on! We accept that our bodies consist of elements that are recycled...ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Is it likely that our spirit or soul is any different? I assert that there is a kind of universal consciousness. From this, a soul is formed and manifests together with the entity that is the developing unborn child, and continues through all sorts of energetic cycles through a lifetime. At around the time of death of the body, the soul returns to the soup of universal energy. It doesn't cease. It changes form.
Yep, there is all sorts of interesting stuff in there Dog. Can't say I believe in a 'soul' as such. Sounds like something someone made up at some stage, but I try not to underestimate our own consciousness and subconsciousness.
There's some research that suggests that memories, along with personality traits and various behaviours are passed along in our DNA to our offspring, so it wouldn't surprise me if some dreams I have are actually ghost remnants from my father or his father etc. Perhaps that's why the sins of the father are passed on. These studies have also suggested that memories are not only stored in the brain, but are seeded in our genes.
I've read some of the latest brain research presented by John Joseph. There are some articles on the following website that give up to date insight on what we know about the brain and some ideas about how we can use that knowledge. Some information is available here free, but most has to be purchased.
The writings of the Church Fathers in English are available from a number of publishers, not least of which being Penguin. And for the record, I wasn't disputing the quote by Origen. He was condemned as a heretic for this, and similar beliefs. However, the partial quotation attributed to Augustine paints altogether the wrong picture concerning his beliefs (notice that the partial quote didn't provide that all important issue of context). No. My beef was with the nonsense that was attributed to Constantine and Queen Helena
LikeI said... it was only a quote from a book I read, NOT my own personal thoughts. Either you've been out in the sun too long or your little face there is quite angry! lol..Easy big fella. No need to get so worked up about a topic.
I said........... It is a known fact that the scriptures have been tampered with quite alot throughout the ages to suit the leaders of the day. History confirms this. You said........... Baloney. Pure and simple. Or, to put matters another way, rubbish! This is stuff of ignorance and fantasy, not of credible history
And to use your own phrase... Baloney. The current scriptures have had words added to them and some taken away. Fact. Obviously not in the very FIRST writings, but in subsequent translations throughout history they have.
You said............ We've over 5,700 bits and pieces of the Christian Bible dating from the early 2nd century onwards in Greek, and over 10,000 bits and pieces in Latin, Coptic, Armenian and other ancient languages. Guess what? No mention of reincarnation in any of them!
Well ok then.
Nor do we find the wholesale tampering of the biblical text that you suggest.
Please refer back to previous reply.
Sorry, but the Dan Brown's of this world shouldn't be taken as informative guides on the subject.
Ahh.. the davinci code... T'was a good read! Although I DO prefer non-fiction books myself, it was still good.
I said........... Who is to say whether reincarnation really was part of the bible originally??? Anyone who understands the textual history, and the history of transmission of the Christian Bible, for starters! What you've suggested is absolutely ludicrous, and has no basis in historical fact, whatsoever.
"I" didn't suggest it... I just quoted from a book! And as for the other posts I've made on the topic? It, once again, was just things that I had read on the internet that I 'cut and pasted' for a bit of light reading on the subject and to put forth what many, many others have to say on the topic. But of course... THEY are ALL wrong, because YOU have studied it. It is your forte. But then again... where you actually around all those years ago?? Or are you just telling us what you have been taught??
I said........... I'm not saying I'm a believer in reincarnation. Its just an interesting topic to look into and obviously brings quite a bit of attention as far as discussing it. You said.......... Speaking for myself, I prefer discussions to be based more on the facts of a given matter as they have been established, than on hair-brained and fantastical conspiracy theories. But that's just me, others might prefer otherwise
Well then Sott. Perhaps you had better by-pass this topic. It obviously gets you worked up and its all nonsense to you. Me? Well... I'm reading LOTS of things. Growing, learning. Obviously with further study in different areas, I too will work out what is fact and what is a load of codswollop. I'm not about to just stop looking into things because one little red-faced person on the pc screen tells me its all rubbish. I'd prefer to find out for myself thankyou. Its fun to be on this journey of discovery as to what else is outside of the churches restraining way of living. Personally, I think Dogmafree's explanation of it all is makes more sense.
I admire your wisdom sott but you really do seem to come across as an expert on absolutely everything and your 'word' should be taken as gospel without question! Well, then. You might have forgotten that this just happens to be my area of academic expertise! Biblical language and literature, and all that
Well.. thanks for your academic expertise Sott but like I said, I'd prefer to look into things myself and judge for myself what is true and what is false. I spent too many years being told by another 'man' what to believe, what to think, say, do and act. Once again... thankyou for your input anyways on the subject!
Regards.... Bindi
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
OK here goes.....I'll try to present some concepts that I have learned from some buddhist sources that I find myself fairly comfortable with. The reincarnation that they refer to must be appreciated within the greater context of some of these principles. But firstly, consider this....Most of us would agree that physicists have concluded that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Rather, it can change from one form to another. So, fuel may be burned, changing into heat, gases and other forms of energy etc. Generally this is a universal principle that we recognise as a given. Agreed?Now when we contemplate a human life, we talk about being born and then dying. So, many of us have the notion that when we are 'born' we begin to exist after having been nothing. Then when we die, we believe that from being something (alive) we become nothing (dead). The buddhis
Hiya Dog...
Now that was an interesting perspective on the whole concept of reincarnation! Makes sense to me. Thanks for that!
Regards... Bindi
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 05:16:06)
Reply to : MothandRust
Yep, there is all sorts of interesting stuff in there Dog. Can't say
Hiya moth,
Yeah, there is a lot of research and theories about our 'store consciousness'. I saw a fascinating doco recently that looked at lots of research into folk who have had heart transplants. There were lots of accounts of the hearty recipient becoming greatly affected by memories and personality traits of the heart donor. In one case, there was a guy from a low socio-economic society who had scarce literary abilities. After the transplant, he become almost obsessively compelled to write poetry. He had a whole new creative streak and produced magnificent writing. It was investigated and it turned out the donor was of those same abilities and inclinations.
The doco went on to interview many experts and scientists, and it was revealed that there is compelling evidence that the heart has a massive capacity as a source of our thoughts, emotions etc. So it would seem that the way we metaphorically talk about our heart has more substance than we thought. It is far more than a pump for our blood, it would seem!
Do we/don't we have a soul? Hmmm... guess it depends on what we think a soul is (to a point).
So, apart from all the physical matter that makes up your body, what do you think it is that gives us life? What is it that makes each of us a unique personality. Would you accept that it is 'consciousness'? Where did it come from? Where does it go after our body is pushing up daisies? Is it a form of energy? If yes, how do you reconcile the notion of energy suddenly manifesting, then suddenly stopping (or does it)?
Lots of questions!...........
These questions are proposed with the hope that anyone reading will contemplate them deeply, on an instinctual level. Not to go back to bibles, books and research other's ideas, but to inquire deeply within your own being.
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 05:57:47)
"Or, to put this another way: 'hang' the facts and the 'experts', what the (oh-so-credible) sooth-sayers is far more attractive"
Ian, who (in your statement above) are the sooth-sayers you are referring to?
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 06:18:28)
Reply to : SOTT1
Reply to : dogmafreeDog,Ian, who (in your statement above) are the sooth-sayers you are referring to?The authors of the books Bindi has been referring to viz. reincarnation and the Bible. Did you think I was referring to you?Blessings,Ian
Must admit Ian, it had crossed my mind. Must be that confounded pre-occupation with my self!
BTW, thanks for the blessings!
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
You must be missing Franks Ghost eh?? It was Ol' Frankie that you used to love having a little banter with wasn't it??? My turn now? Hahaha! All in good fun! As for me reading more non fiction books? I do already my friend. Maybe I'm not quite as old as you and haven't had as much time outside of the 'church' to learn as much as you have, but please don't knock my wanting to read various books and search out for myself what is true and what isn't. I don't have a great deal of time to sit around reading everything in the library given the fact Ive got a family to look after, 3 jobs and I study as well! Over and out for now... you can move on to the next person to 'put down'. You may not be intentionally trying to put others points of view down as such, but buddy, you really should consider how you put your opinion across. Maybe minus the sarcasm dare I request?
Regards... Bindi.
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Reply to : bindiBindi,If you choose to spruik rubbish here, then youshouldexpect to be taken to task. If you choose to spruik rubbish here aboutChristianity, then you canexpectto be taken to task by meFinally, given the amount of busy-ness that you've claimed above, how is it that you seem to have no difficulty at all in spending quite a bit of time too-ing and fro-ing here?Blessings,IanP.S. By the way, should I spruik rubbish here, then I fully expect to be taken to task myself. So don't cry 'foul' if someone scrapes the very thin veneer off what are completely baseless theories.
Finally, given the amount of busy-ness that you've claimed above, how is it that you seem to have no difficulty at all in spending quite a bit of time too-ing and fro-ing here?
Because I'm up at 4am to start main work.. get home by 8.30am... give myself a bit of a coffee break and check out the forum or different websites.. get off.. do some study.. and/or go do my mobile work if I have bookings... go home and get ready to go back to main work at 2.30pm ( split shift )... get home at 6.30pm... if I have work booked for that evening, I get ready for that whilst doing dinner for the family etc. I am woman! Multi tasker! Go re-bait your hook Sott.... This fish just released itself from your hook and got away and aint coming any where near your bait anymore! LOL! Besides, I've got as much right to be here 'too-ing and fro-ing' as you have buddy!
Adios Sott....
Regards... Bindi
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610 Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 10:18:26)
Reply to : SOTT1
Reply to : bindiBindi,If you choose to spruik rubbish here, then youshouldexpect to be taken to task. If you choose to spruik rubbish here aboutChristianity, then you canexpectto be taken to task by meFinally, given the amount of busy-ness that you've claimed above, how is it that you seem to have no difficulty at all in spending quite a bit of time too-ing and fro-ing here?Blessings,IanP.S. By the way, should I spruik rubbish here, then I fully expect to be taken to task myself. So don't cry 'foul' if someone scrapes the very thin veneer off what are completely baseless theories.
Ya know, you impress upon me Ian... you really, honeslty, truly do. I am actually inspired and feeling like I would want to study theology and make some informed choices. My trouble is lazines and apathy,and meh, so much more. I've been watching far too much television and spend far too much of my time laughing at christian parody and satire. I want to read Dawkins - and even Hitchens still (:-P)- but want to get some balance.
I feel this way sometimes and then force myself to have a vodka instead, but honestly, my head races around like you wouldn't believe. I'm a teacher and it's hard enough keeping up with the new software I have to know to teach, but - so help me - I want to pursue the only thing that's ever truly interested me, apart from Batman, and see where it takes me before I get old and senile.
I know Ian will say amen when I say that I ramble far too much crap without checking its logical or theological validity first. I talk crap and I admit it. Sigh. If I were to subscribe to a belief, it'd be christianity. If I was to subscribe to Christianity, it wouldn't be Fundamentalist/Pentecostalism. I've never heard Ian say something that was offensive to my 'gut' feelings. I think far too much and at the same time hardly at all. Why is that, and why on earth would I share it online as I do? I'm hoping at some point someone will say something that makes sense to me, and I my problem is that I am too eager to make my atheistic friends happy with me.
Again, I'm not scared to put my heart on my sleeve here. I don't want my atheist/agnostic freinds to give me more websites, and I don't want my christian friends to smirk at me and say that 'god is talking to me'. Pfft. I don't care if I died tonight, I feel okay with that, but I dunno, life is too complicated, or too simple. I have no idea really.
goddamit. Sometimes I find myself completely back at square one.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Rank:New Member
Score:980 Posts:49
Registered:09/02/2007
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 11:18:19)
Reply to : SOTT1Reply to : bindiBindi,If you choose to spruik rubbish here, then youshouldexpect to be taken to task.
Hi Bindi,
thanks for this interesting topic and the website address! THere are some fascinating accounts of life after death experiences on the site which are really eye opening. LIke Dogma, I have a lot of time for Buddhism. I think, in the end, we go with our gut feeling. SOTT has his beliefs, John Kuhlman has his, JWs and SDA's have theres. I think we can listen to everyones point of view, but ultimately the belief which gives us a sense of joy, and 'coming home' is the right one -for us.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Better one handful with tranquility than two handfuls with toil - Solomon
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610 Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
(Date Posted:27/06/2007 16:38:29)
Reply to : SOTT1
Reply to : MothandRustMoth.Bravo to you. If you ever want to talk through these issues, you know where to find meBlessings,Ian
Thanks 'preciate that. When I've worked out the questions I want to ask I'll e-mail you.
Big Girl - ultimately the belief which gives us a sense of joy, and 'coming home' is the right one -for us.
I wish that were true, but I felt the 'coming home' feeling when I settled into Revival churches years ago. That feeling did give joy to a degree, but I believe that the Revival church, like many (not all) churches are dangerous traps, where we can get forever swirled into an eddie of false hope and peace. We didn't know we were being lied to and we didn't know we were telling lies to others. Can it be called a lie, or is it close to call it misconceptions about reality?
Dog - So, apart from all the physical matter that makes up your body, what do you think it is that gives us life? What is it that makes each of us a unique personality. Would you accept that it is 'consciousness'? Where did it come from? Where does it go after our body is pushing up daisies? Is it a form of energy? If yes, how do you reconcile the notion of energy suddenly manifesting, then suddenly stopping (or does it)?
It is a big question. I would have thought that life was just the response to stimuli as our brains developed in the womb and that personality was just a mixture of gene passing and environmental conditioning. When we take our last breath, the neutrons stop firing in much the same way a computer stops storing data on its ROM at shutdown. I wouldn't have thought consciousness to be a form of energy, so I wouldn't have been surprised at the idea of it simply stopping - I think that is the brain and mind. Soul and spirit on the other hand... I have to think in terms of... i dunno, it'd have to exist outside of physics and biology.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
There's some research that suggests that memories, along with personality traits and various behaviours are passed along in our DNA to our offspring,
Hi Moth... There is also some suggestion that organ recipients have taken on some of the personality traits of the unknown donor which could further substantiate that research. I personally find that quite fascinating!
Regards.. Bindi
*added after I originally posted this reply*..... DOH! Another Homor moment! Sorry Dog.. just read your previous post and realized you had already mentioned about the whole organ transplant personality thing! Ive also seen a doco on the same and found it really quite interesting! So... where do we go from here?? Is our 'personality' part of what is called our soul? If then there is such a thing as a soul, does that then mean that our soul goes on 'living' in another persons body?? Maybe you could answer that one SOTT? lol! ( Ohhh.. I'm a brave girl!! ) Seriously.... without the 'put downs' or sarcasm, if you could perhaps enlighten us with what you know in this area Sott it would be much appreciated!
Again... regards.. Bindi!
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610 Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
(Date Posted:28/06/2007 06:57:59)
Reply to : bindi
Reply to : MothandRustThere's some research that suggests that memories, along with personality traits and various behaviours are passed along in our DNA to our offspring,Hi Moth... There is also some suggestion that organ recipients have taken on some of the personality traits of the unknown donor which could further substantiate that research. I personally find that quite fascinating!Regards.. Bindi
Yeah, I'm intrigued by this stored consciousness idea. What does it mean when we swap body parts around on a spiritual level? Are there any 'thou shalt nots' in Leviticus refering to heart donors? I know what the Jehovah Witnesses would say to that one... pfft. I doubt Israelites would have been allowed to share their organs with other nations, as they were'nt allowed to share their semen. One way of another we always find some way to stir up the gene pool. Are the sins of the father passed onto the slate of the organ donor.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:28/06/2007 07:49:56)
Brolga,
Thanks for your response (in another thread) where you conclude something like
"But Christianity is the only one that PROMISES ETERNAL LIFE"
Then here, you state "Nowhere in The Bible can be found an immortal soul"
Once more, I'm bamboozled by another bible conundrum......
So, we can have eternal life, but we don't have an immortal soul, so we can't be there to enjoy it!!!????
Sorry, that's clear as mud!
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Reply to : dogmafree.........Do we/don't we have a soul? Hmmm... guess it depends on what we think a soul is (to a point).........Another example of Bible simplicity verses man's philosophy, to understanding. It is man's thoughts that cause the confusion. How doesone arrive at the concept that a soul is something separate from the body when the Bible is telling us something different. Isn't it from the Bible this word originated?Vis:........The English word soul is used to translate two original words of theOld Testamentand
Dude like live a life as if there is not afterlife just in case you wake up dead and like there is not god and stuff. Ya' know what I mean? Like there is no real proof that there is an afterlife and there is no guarantee that you're goin' to get there if there is one.
And have a look at thie web site and you will see that there is no proof that there is a real god or not. Like I watched this web site and I saw the truth as I want the truth to be because I don't like to lie and con people like pastors do. And well I'm a nice guy and well I like you know don't lie and stuff.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, then everywhere is war"
I"ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I"ve never seen anything to make me believe there"s one all-powerful force controlling everything. There"s no mystical energy field controls my destiny.?
If there is a God I don"t like him
AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID
Brolga,Thanks for your response (in another thread) where you conclude something like"But Christianity is the only one that PROMISES ETERNAL LIFE"Then here, you state "Nowhere in The Bible can be found an immortal soul"Once more, I'm bamboozled by another bible conundrum......So, we can have eternal life, but we don't have an immortal soul, so we can't be there to enjoy it!!!????Sorry, that's clear as mud!Dog.
Touche Dog!
Brolga... You have totally lost me as well with THAT one! In the words of Pauline Hanson.... " Please explain????"
If then, according to your statement, we have no soul... what part of our body 'goes up to meet him in the air?' What part lives on eternally? What about all of those stinking, rotting corpses? Does the physical body come back to life to be raised up? Which begs me to ask the next question.... Does that then explain the 'zombies' we see in movies?? The walking dead! Pooohhh! Smelly! I'd REALLY like to know the answer to these questions Brolga..seriously. Please explain further.
Regards.... Bindi
-------------------------------------------------------------- " IF I COULD WISH FOR MY LIFE TO BE PERFECT, IT WOULD BE TEMPTING BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DECLINE, FOR LIFE WOULD NO LONGER TEACH ME ANYTHING."
Allyson Jones
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:28/06/2007 16:02:51)
Yep there, see!............ that was simple and clear now wasn't it! What was the conclusion then?
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Your explanation of the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is interesting and eloquent, but ...
But firstly, consider this....Most of us would agree that physicists have concluded that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Rather, it can change from one form to another. So, fuel may be burned, changing into heat, gases and other forms of energy etc. Generally this is a universal principle that we recognise as a given. Agreed?
...
As our consciousness leaves the body, it will have stored a lifetime of energies, great joys and sorrows, emotional attachments and maybe unfulfilled dreams etc. It has been suggested that if there are strong residual energies that have not been resolved in the lifetime, these energies may continue to seek expression in another form. (The Tibetans have fairly sophisticated theories about these processes that are interesting, to say the least)! Anyways, it can be considered that the forming new life may become the new 'host' of this 'unfinished business' and form a basis of the evolving soul.
How does this model deal with the (observed) increasing thermodynamic entropy of the universe?
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:02/07/2007 04:33:28)
How does this model deal with the (observed) increasing thermodynamic entropy of the universe?
Hi RFOTE,
The simple answer is I don't know!
I could speculate and come up with half baked theories, but I would be out of my depth (in all honesty). Its a very good question though. What do you think?
If the universe is kind of 'running down' like a battery, that would certainly contradict the principle that I alluded to in my post. My simple understanding was that it was a pillar of accepted science that energy remains constant, but changes form. It'd be interesting if this is shown to be wrong!
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
I'm not employed as a "practising scientist", so I'm not sure I'd call myself a scientist ('though I do have a master's degree).
Hi Dog
If the universe is kind of 'running down' like a battery, that would certainly contradict the principle that I alluded to in my post. My simple understanding was that it was a pillar of accepted science that energy remains constant, but changes form. It'd be interesting if this is shown to be wrong! Entropy isn't an area I'm expert in, but ... My understanding is that although the amount of mass-energy in the universe (at least since the big-bang) is constant, the availability (for the universe as a whole) of the energy is being dissipated, and thus less available to do work. (The "mass-energy" expression takes into account such things as nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and stellar creation of matter.) E.g., there's always a "loss" of energy when it's converted from one form to another. Illustration: From the perspective of environmental stewardship, if the transmission losses were comparable, cooking with gas would be better than cooking with electricity from a gas-fuelled power station as there are fewer conversions and and less energy loss. In a way therefore, as I understand it, the universe (as a whole) can be characterised as "running down like a battery".
What do you think? If mind is energy as we understand it now, then reincarnation is unlikely and energy would be "made less available" until eventually anything that was being reincarnated would itself be dissipated. (Perhaps nirvana would be annhilation?) I think this would apply if mind is any (even as yet undiscovered) part of the substance of the universe, but this is off-the-top-of-my-head speculation and so I'm happy to be corrected. No doubt there's a PhD-level physicist-turned-theologian (or otherwise well informed theologian) somewhere who could present a reliable Christian perspective.
Although there are many curious aspects to the brain and mind (I find reports of remote viewing particularly fascinating), my understanding of the biblical revelation - which I accept by faith informed by reason and experience - is that reincarnation doesn't happen, and that spirit/soul/mind interacts with, but is not part of, the substance of the universe.
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:03/07/2007 06:24:00)
Hi RFOTE,
Interesting!
Could it be that if the 'known' universe is in a state of entropy, that the energy actually gradually dissipates into a greater universe/realm/whatever??? Sort of like a baloon with a pin-hole in it. As the air escapes slowly, it is only transferring the air into the room.
A crude possible scenario in my mind might be that with each person who goes through the cycle of conception/growth/life/death> it is just a rearranging of all the same elements/molecules/consciousness that is there all along. All from and of the same stuff, but rearranged differently. A bit like a big lump of plasticine being formed, then rolled up and remodeled into another entity.
Also interesting that you were saying 'nirvana' would probably mean annihilation. There's talk of that state being the loss of ego or self identity (a kind of annihilation) one could argue. Yet its more like a surrendering of the self to the great pool of energy that it actually is already. Or the plasticine returning to the blob, losing its own identity.
Food for thought (or nought, if that's your take on it)!
Anyways
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Could it be that if the 'known' universe is in a state of entropy, that the energy actually gradually dissipates into a greater universe/realm/whatever??? Sort of like a baloon with a pin-hole in it. As the air escapes slowly, it is only transferring the air into the room.
When I used the word "dissipate" I didn't mean mass-energy leaking from the universe. As you said, science indicates that the total amount is constant. What is "dissipating" is the ability of the mass-energy to do anything. Eventually, the universe's mass-energy will be in a state where it can't do anything.
The "entropy" picture, as I understand it, is somewaht like this. Think of the universe as a water proof container and energy as water in that container. At the start the water is all ice. Eventually it melts and even evaporates. In this container, a proportion of the water may condense or solidify, while any solid or liquid water exists ... but always less than 100% of what melts or evaporates. Eventually all the water evaporates and none condenses or solidifies. If any water condenses or solidifies, it causes more water somewhere else to melt or evaporate. While it's melting and evaporating the water can do stuff, but after it's evaporated (in this picture) that's it, zippo, zero, nothing. The water is still there in the container, but it can't do anything, and the container and it's contents behave as if there's nothingexternal influencing it. As I understand it, science (effectively = experimental evidence and analysis of that evidence) knows of no external freeze-dryer waiting to restore the water vapour to ice and start the ball rolling again.
Also interesting that you were saying 'nirvana' would probably mean annihilation. There's talk of that state being the loss of ego or self identity (a kind of annihilation) one could argue. Yet its more like a surrendering of the self to the great pool of energy that it actually is already. Or the plasticine returning to the blob, losing its own identity.
Yeah, I've read a little populist stuff about Buddhism and nirvana, which is why I made the reference though I actually said "perhaps it would" be annhilation. The annhilation I was referring to, unfortunately, is more like what would happen to our bodies if we were at ground-zero of a nuclear explosion.
Hmmm. No doubt I'm oversimplifying, but ... a controlling RF encourages one to give up one's sense of self-identity. Should an ex-RF'r seeking nirvana return to a controlling RF?
Food for thought (or nought, if that's your take on it)!
Certainly food for thought, but I don't think I can "value add" anything more. It will be interesting to hear what others have to say ... and maybe be corrected by someone who understands thermodynamic entropy better than moi.
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8300 Posts:355
Registered:21/02/2006
(Date Posted:04/07/2007 08:20:26)
Thanks RFOTE,
I think I'll leave it at that, lest I tie myself seriously up in knots!
Return to RF to attain to nirvana? (((((shudder)))))
Cheers!
Dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------- "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
I think I'll leave it at that, lest I tie myself seriously up in knots!
Personally, I'm in the process of trying to remove my left big toe from my right ear and unwind the three loops of that left leg that are currently wrapped arond my torso!
Must be that confounded pre-occupation with my self! 
It was Ol' Frankie that you used to love having a little banter with wasn't it??? My turn now? Hahaha! All in good fun! As for me reading more non fiction books? I do already my friend. Maybe I'm not quite as old as you and haven't had as much time outside of the 'church' to learn as much as you have, but please don't knock my wanting to read various books and search out for myself what is true and what isn't. I don't have a great deal of time to sit around reading everything in the library given the fact Ive got a family to look after, 3 jobs and I study as well! Over and out for now... you can move on to the next person to 'put down'. You may not be intentionally trying to put others points of view down as such, but buddy, you really should consider how you put your opinion across. Maybe minus the sarcasm dare I request?
I'm not employed as a "practising scientist", so I'm not sure I'd call myself a scientist ('though I do have a master's degree).
