Reincarnation vs. Evil http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/reincarnation-it-has-been-said-if-you.html
Eastern Philosophy vs. Existence http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/08/hinduism-and-buddhism-put-to-test.html
By-the-by. You have just judged the Holy Scripture of Christians and Muslims. Why? Because they reject pantheism as a worldview. I am merely pointing this out because you seem to not want people to "judge," yet you just did by saying one position is true which by logic says other positions are wrong.
question for you, if "jesus" is the only way to salvation and the lord wants us to realize this, why isn't everyone born into a christian family? its not fair that some are born muslims or sikhs or hindus or buddhists and not able to hear christs message without bias...why is the heavenly father so unfair that he handicaps billions in the search for truth?
if there is only one way, why so many different types of flowers, trees, dogs etc., one kind of each would be sufficient, no?
Engaging as always I see. That’s a good thing. I want to tackle two quick things that if you wish we can talk about later. First, reincarnation is impossible outside of the pantheistic (or panantheistic) worldviews. I have studied comparative religious thought for about 20-years, and I can emphatically state that monotheism or atheism do not allow for the regression of the soul. That’s one, not two. Reincarnation was not accepted in the Christian community until Nicea. I have likewise studied the early church for almost as long as comparative religions… and I can likewise – emphatically state – that this is not the case. Usually people who believe this also believe the Bible was put together at Nicea, Jesus was elevated to God-Almighty, and the like. I would love to discuss these things more with you in the near future if you wish. However, since I love Scripture, we will start here… sorta.
Before we get into the Scripture you mentioned, and oft repeated one in New Age and Eastern thinking, I want to get some ground rules going, and these ground rules are exegesis and hermeneutics (I will post them on my site under “Science of Interpretation” – you should read it before going further). These rules have been around for 2,500-years. You should become acquainted with them as they will make your studying more fruitful. Okay, the Bible… what fun!
Matthew 17:12: (Jesus Words) “But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did do to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.”
John and Elijah did not have the same being -- they had the same function. Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was literally Elijah, but simply that he came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).
Secondly, Jesus’ disciples understood that he was speaking about John the Baptist, since Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:10-13). Since John had already lived and died by then, and since Elijah still had the same name and consciousness, Elijah had obviously not been reincarnated as John the Baptist.
Thirdly, Elijah does not fit the reincarnation model, for he did not die. He was taken to heaven like Enoch who did not see death (2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5). According to traditional reincarnation, one must first die before he can be reincarnated into another body.
And finally, this passage should be understood in the light of the clear teaching of Scripture opposing reincarnation. Hebrews 9:27, for example declares, “It is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment” (John 9:2).
So, we have Scripture clearly stating that John the Baptist came in the “spirit and power”. Saying that when I send a lawyer to court to sign papers for me, he is going in my spirit and power is not saying the lawyer is me. Same concept. Also the Bible clearly mentions that we die once. These two verses define the limits of the other verse you quoted from. The Bible interprets the Bible Godsdog.
Rule of Definition. Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
Rule of Usage. Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
Rule of Context. Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
Rule of Historical background. Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.
Rule of Logic. Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
Rule of Precedent. Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.
Rule of Unity. Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
Rule of Inference. Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
reincarnation is not a make or break issue for me personally, i don't care if i've haven't "lived" before or if i have to "come back" as long as i don't forget the one lord
reincarnation does, however, make intuitive sense to me
although there are numerous references to reincarnation in sri guru granth sahib, sggs also states that this human body is extremely difficult to obtain and there is no guarantee when one will obtain one again
so we need to cherish this human life and follow the lords call to faith and righteousness and not assume we have innumerable human lives ahead of us to make amends
i feel there is a last day of judgement (as stated in the bible and koran) when this current cycle of the lords play comes to an end
on that day, if i am consigned to hell due to my beliefs or statements...so be it...i ask only that i do not forget the one...if this wish is granted, hell will be a paradise for me
Okay Godsdog, track with me buddy… focus like a laser beam. The Quran and the Bible are theistic books. They have in mind a being that created even time itself.
Here, maybe that didn’t help, let me try this. The Biblical view of God and His action in the world and final judgment is neither that of Kismet, the fatalism of Islam, nor that of Karma, the deterministic cause-and-effect of Hinduism and Buddhism. The human actors always behave as if free in their choices and therefore responsible for them.
If you read that small paragraph above, you will see that reincarnation cannot stem from theism, and even within theism there are theological differences that preclude Allah (in Islamic thought) from even caring enough to Judge righteously.
So to the first point. The theistic God has personality, He grieves, feels pains when people decide to reject Him, and is even angered. The God that Sikhs and Buddhist, Taoists, Hindu’s and others speak of is merely a force. This God did not create the “time/space continuum,” but matter and the universe are eternal like this “Mind” is eternal. (There are deep philosophical problem to an actual infinite regress of events in history, but this is a discussion for another day.) Reincarnation, in fact, can only run in a pantheistic worldview.
And since we know that both the theistic God who is personal and creative cannot exist at the same time as a “Force” who is impersonal and not creative (even using “who” for this pantheistic “god” is wrong), then either there is judgment or there is not. Logically then, both gods (the pantheistic one and the theistic one) could both not exist, making atheism the answer. But in pantheistic thinking this “Force” has always “existed” alongside matter, or, nature. This then makes this “Force” susceptible to nature’s influences and laws. The Judeo-Christian specifically created nature and therefore nature’s laws. So He is above these laws and not subject to them in any way, shape, or form. (I might add that the laws of logic and order come out of God’s nature of Being.) The “Force” of reincarnation is subject to nature and human actions.
This conversation shouldn’t be about debate; this one should be about clarity of thought. I want you to walk away from this conversation learning new truths that you may not have considered in the past. Our world puts limitations on us -- in that one cannot disavow logical applications of thought about certain issues. And reincarnation and pantheism are at odds with your personal talk of judgment and a God who is active and cares and is angered. Both concepts cannot be true, and if this is what Sikhs believe -- that both concepts are true -- then you can surmise on your own if this belief is true or not. It is not my opinion or yours... you can reason to the logical conclusion using principles outside of yourself that both you and I can tap into.
Realize Godsdog that Hindus teach that there is a "Mind" that is timeless. But this "Mind" is impersonal, and that all "personalities" are an illusion because this eternal "Mind" is not personal. In fact, this is why pantheists - those who believe in reincarnation - try to rise above personality by altered states of consciousness, as well as other techniques (some completely stop talking and engaging with loved ones - like in Tibet and in India for example).
Absorption into this "Mind" seems to be the goal of Eastern philosophy. They lose "themselves" in the infinite Mass/Mind... there is no "me" or "you" in Eastern thought. ...
Which, if true and believed by you, you are one mind arguing with another mind (mine) that no minds like ours exist. That is self-refuting. But, I will look into this even more. But I have read Nanak and others and feel I have a decent grasp on your philosophy, with areas that I need to grow in knowledge in of course.