Why is going to heaven not a specific case of reincarnation?

[Tom]

Reincarnation offers many possibilities, including heaven and hell. Why is it that the many Christians I have spoken to think that reincarnation is absurd, but that they will die (leaving their bodies behind), go to either heaven or hell, and this is not the same?

[Potential]

Christians don't believe in Karma, just John 3:16.

[Potential]

Why does Jesus wear a red kashya over his left shoulder just as Buddhist Monks have?

[no_leaf_clover]

Reincarnation offers many possibilities, including heaven and hell. Why is it that the many Christians I have spoken to think that reincarnation is absurd, but that they will die (leaving their bodies behind), go to either heaven or hell, and this is not the same?

I would think because 'reincarnation' has connotations of reincarnating on Earth, especially as a human, ie multiple lives on Earth. I don't think the idea's really any more absurd than Heaven or Hell. Personally I believe the contrary, but I'd say it ties back to sociology. The Western Hemisphere is dominated by Christianity and along with that comes the belief of Heaven and Hell, which is socially-accepted as the norm. People just have to put some unbiased thought into it, I guess/

[Tayesin]

Well said No Leaf.

[Gandalf]

Tayesin_

True enough,  and if you remember what the Big Man (Julius Caesar) said about the Gauls and their belief in 'transmigration', (as well as other classical writers), then some form of reincarnation belief used to be widespread in Europe too at one time, or at least northern Europe.

Doug

[sweetbliss]

Christian Church has rejected the idea of reincarnation because of losing the capacity to ensure a real practice to redemption. Because reincarnation implies that we come into earthly lives to effectively do something for our spiritual growth. This would mean that a spiritual guide (a priest) should be able to effectively lead us to enlightenment. Which obviously is not the case, since hundreds of years, though there were enlightened priests, and still are some. But the general atmosphere is that they have lost the ability to convey too much of what they are preaching.

So, this absurd idea, that people might go to heaven after only one life, blocks the minds in a confusion and prevents us from pretending too much from priests. (Because it is an absurd thing to believe that many of the people who have lived in the last two thousand years, at least, might go to heaven, judging on their lives and spiritual achievements. )

I just believe that God is neither such absurd or unrealistic, nor such mean to create for his people such a minute and improbable chance to realize their selves and reach a point of pure enjoyment of reality!

 

[exothen]

I not only reject the concept of reincarnation for theological reasons, but for philosophical ones as well - it really is an irrational idea frought with contradictions.

[Tom]

Why is it that when people go to heaven it is not reincarnation?

[no_leaf_clover]

I not only reject the concept of reincarnation for theological reasons, but for philosophical ones as well - it really is an irrational idea frought with contradictions.

Hm? o.O

[NickJW]

christian alert (exothen)

[Tom]

That's my whole point. I want a Christian to show me how or why there could be a difference between going to heaven and being reincarnated there. They obviously do not plan on having their dead body rotting in heaven, and they do not ever talk about floating about as a point of light. Christians obviously think that they will leave a physical body and take up a different body in heaven.

[Gandalf]

yes although ultimatly Exothen, you can debate which idea is more 'logical' until the cows come home, and there are very smart answers to support and/ or reject christian/muslim/jewish ideas about this issue just as much as there are for hindu/buddhist ideas.

At the end of the day though, thats all it is.... a logic game.. it may also be possible that on our level it is impossible for us to conceive of greater reality due to our limited perception, therefor trying to prove which system is more 'logical' from our own narrow perception of reality may mean absolutly nothing..

Ultimatly then it comes down to your own personal belief.. you either beleive in reinarnation or you dont, as with all other religious beliefs

Personally I find theology a complete waste of time.. all it does is argue over which hypothetical scenario is more logical and constructs detailed systems of belief from it... dont get me wrong, some of them are very smart indeed, works of genius some of them... but ultimatly thats all they are at the end of the day: hypothetical scenarios...

Whats irritating is that there is an assumption that somehow theologans have a better understanding of 'god' and ultimate reality than anyone else, when of course they dont. at the end of the day they are just as much in the dark as the rest of us... logic games are very clever but thats all they are.


Remember that one Exothen when you start arguing over which belief system is more logical...
an analogy might be two dimensional creatures (on a flat world) trying to understand 'ultimate reality'.. however they are never going to get anywhere near understanding the world from their limited 2 dimensional perspective which cannot conceive of the 3 dimensional world.. all their theories will be flawed because of this.

Douglas

[exothen]

Tom,

Why is it that when people go to heaven it is not reincarnation?

Perhaps one can offer a definition of reincarnation before we get to far into this.

Christians obviously think that they will leave a physical body and take up a different body in heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44, "42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."


Eastern Canadian alert (NickJW)


Gandalf,

Do you think that we are unable to come to a knowledge of the truth? Do you not think that as rational agents we have the capacity to determine which is more logical of two or more things? Perhaps you think that man made up logic and rational thinking, that it wasn't already there and we just discovered it or have all been given it.

There really is no reason to begin with a negative view of reality and go from there, thinking that we may not be able to know anything at all. Why not start from the point of believing that truth exists and that truth relates to the ultimate reality in such a way that at least some of it, if not most it, can be discovered through reason.

Why would anyone want to have a set of beliefs or adhere to a given belief system if their beliefs lack coherence and are contradictory? I would much rather believe that which is most rational and coherent as it is likely to be the truth, or at least closer to the truth than everything else.

Remember that one Exothen when you start arguing over which belief system is more logical...
an analogy might be two dimensional creatures (on a flat world) trying to understand 'ultimate reality'.. however they are never going to get anywhere near understanding the world from their limited 2 dimensional perspective which cannot conceive of the 3 dimensional world.. all their theories will be flawed because of this.

Then this analogy is flawed as well and I have no reason to believe it, nor your whole post. Again, there is no reason to believe that we can't discover what 'ultimate reality' really is.

[Gandalf]

absolutely, nor is there any evidence to say we can. That is what i am saying... this is why theologans are in fact no way nearer the 'truth' about wider reality and 'god' than anyone else.

I'm not saying people shouldnt try, I'm saying that we always have to be aware that these ideas are OUR views and as such may always be distorted limited reflections, its just a possiblitiy to keep in mind. All we can ever say about theological arguments is that such and such *may* be a possiblility but you will never know for sure. My thinking is that the nature of reality may be so vast that to think we can conceive of it from our limited perspective here *may* be hubris.. You take the opposite view, which i accept as it follows the Classical Greek model of thought in that by using our logos or reason we have the capacity to find the logos of the world itself... but this may not be the case.

I was just cautioning you in thinking because something is more logical from our persepctive, that it nececerelly means that it is any more true as far as greater reality is concerned, as it may be that in our limited perception of reality we can only ever have a limited view. In that case we may have to wait until our life in 'the next word' as it were to begin to understand properly.. who knows, I just think that taking on board bit of a skeptical view (and i mean by this the original Greek 'skeptic' view) is healthy and helps to check dogmatic pronouncements of 'truth'. For this reason, while i find some theological arguments interesting and some of them very clever, I am always very aware that that all they are.. hypothetical arguments. Just something to keep in mind.

[NickJW]

eastern canada?

[exothen]

I was warning of the extreme liberal viewpoints that come out of eastern Canada, but I suppose it is all lost on these forums.

Gandalf,

I'm curious, do you think that logic and rationalism are things that man made up, or are they inherent in all of us, that is, are they put there by "something" in the ultimate reality?

[no_leaf_clover]

I was warning of the extreme liberal viewpoints that come out of eastern Canada, but I suppose it is all lost on these forums.

Jesus was a liberal .

[Gandalf]

hmm, well 'logic' and 'rationalism' are modes of thought, used to understand and process information about our world. I agree with you that our material world can be understood (as far as we can tell) through these modes of thought and therefore we can say that our material world is constructed (or evolved) on a 'logical' basis.

Now, the material world and we ourselves may not be the totality of all that is (although this may be true, but I think we would both hope that this is not the case!), but another possibility is that we and the material world are but one element in a much larger world, an infinitely larger world in fact.

The question is, just because our mental faculties allow us to understand, to a certain degree, our material world, this does not automatically mean that we, a priori, have the mental faculties to accurately perceive and understand the greater world. This is an assumption. You have a belief that as our minds come from god therefore we have the mental capacity to at least understand some basic outline of this greater reality which also comes from god (ie the idea that the logos of man can perceive the logos of god). Again, this is an assumption. I'm not saying we can't. I'm just saying that we might not, thats all: also an assumption granted, but just worth noting thats all. The reason? a very important one: some people can get very carried away by clever theology and assume that they are somehow closer to god or have a better idea of the nature of god because of this. This idea is dangerous in my opinion and we should always keep a note of caution on tap for all those who claim to profess 'Truth' with a capital T. Grand theologies are great but we should never lose sight of the fact that regardless of whatever grand theories people may have, they are in fact no nearer knowing the nature of 'greater reality' than anyone else. Why? because its all theory, not practice.. there is no empirical evidence... its all theory, a hypothetical scenario which you believe in or you don't.

Even leaving this aside, from a purely empirical viewpoint, where is your logical 'evidence' for any kind of afterlife, god, heaven, hell, spirit world, the 'astral' or whatever.. What kind of empirical evidence, which we use to understand features of our material world, can you show me to A: prove that any of these concepts have validity from an empirical viewpoint
and B: that even if we assume that there is a 'greater reality', that it necessarily conforms to your specific judeo-christian belief structure?
That's right, there isnt any... It all comes down to belief.. that word again.
This is why theologans are setting themselves up to crash and burn if they go around stating that their belief in god is based on 'logic' alone.. your chesterson quote there sums it all up, and you, quite nicely. I guarantee if you took that quote or yourself into a logic class, you would be shot down in flames! Theology is based upon an assumption, an assumption which is NOT grounded on logic or empirical data, so you are on very shaky ground if you try to come from an approach of 'rationalism'.

Doug

[Beth]

Dear Gandalf,

Hello there....

Your entire post is most excellent IMO, but this next excerpt is right on the money:

some people can get very carried away by clever theology and assume that they are somehow closer to god or have a better idea of the nature of god because of this. This idea is dangerous in my opinion and we should always keep a note of caution on tap for all those who claim to profess 'Truth' with a capital T. Grand theologies are great but we should never lose sight of the fact that regardless of whatever grand theories people may have, they are in fact no nearer knowing the nature of 'greater reality' than anyone else.

This has been, without doubt, the most dangerous affect of western religion.  Even assuming that there is a god, or better put, a higher power or laws that somehow rule and govern the entire universe, then I think it is safe to assume that little ole' us walking around on this teeny-weeny bluegreen planet do not have anywhere close to a full grasp of this omnipotence--regardless of how well expounded a theory seems to be.  Now, we may inherently intuit that there is such a power, and as a result be able to form some concepts for our own limited understanding, but to emphatically claim to know and understand it in its entirety is IMO utterly preposterous (not to mention extremely arrogant!)  

Thanks Doug for making such a lucid and well thought out...or dare I say...such a logical and rational post!

Peace,
Beth  

[Gandalf]

hmmm, well I do think I go overboard sometimes in my statements and I don't want to knock theology as a discipline, its great! I think the core of what I am wanting to remind people is just to be cautious about assuming that great theologies are in any way true reflections of wider reality.. they may be in a limited form but we will never know, and also a note of caution in thinking that any one group has a better handle on the Truth just because their theological arguments are more sound on an internal logic basis.. this is highly suspect, and always brings me back to Exothen's Chesterson quote, as I believe this line sums up this distorted viewpoint most clearly... This is funny in a way as both Exothen and myself would probably agree that this is our favourite quote at the moment, although for exactly the opposite reasons!


Douglas

[sweetbliss]

Caution is not also one of the priests' common faults? Because, if we linger too much upon the thought that it is dangerous or unfounded to try to directly perceive the Truth or to effectively become the Truth, we are offending our inborn capacity to receive the grace. 'God' and 'grace' and 'speaking the Truth' can be made into a lip service, but this does not imply that they do not exist as a reality.
Logic does not necessarily mean positive logic, but also common sense. The common sense is a discretion we are supposed to use as long as we are not enlightened. Which does not imply, again, that common sense is superior to en enlightened conscience, or that it is more real or more secure that an enlightened conscience. For me, if I don't have this enlightened conscience, this does not draw in any pride or authority on my side. That what most of the priests do and a web of false knowledge is created, and then people repress their pure desire to become/realize in their conscience what they are. And then this amazing force of life is cast away and manifest as low materialistic desires or as lust or as depressions. Actually when I said that it would be absurd that God would give us only an insignificant chance, the logic implied her was not (only) a rational, but also one of heart. Because, according to the Christian belief, there are sins most of us have committed, so most of us would go to Hell. So... it is natural to ask ourselves which is our situation? Are we going to Hell, have all these people in the last thousand years gone to Hell, waiting there for the Last Judgment? Or we avoid thinking about this and live unaware of life and spirituality. If God has made something so terrible as Hell, He must have also endowed us with special capacities to live both in peace and awareness.
Catholics also speak about 'unio mistica' and the Eastern Church about the saints which have become united with God during their life, but how many of the priests or believers focus on this, instead of seeing the Paradise as a life-after-life experience. Or we are just ignoring this possible experience.
There is some evidence that it was not like this at the beginning of the church, and that a selection of Scriptures has been made, the result being the Bible, how we know it today. But the apocryph scriptures speak about reincarnation, are more closed to the Oriental and to the ancient European traditions. So it is very possible that this selection served to a self –justification of a group which focused more on the organization of the church as a successful institution that of spreading enlightenment. The Gnostics have been suppressed by this group. (Even the word 'enlightenment' sounds suspicious in a Christian context lol, though Christ is the Light, and we are supposed to becomes his reflections, isn't it?)

But going to heaven and take another birth are not the same. Hindus also believe that there are Heaven and Hell. (I don't know about Buddhists, I would be curious to know.) In the Hindu 'Puranas' Heaven and Hell are mentioned. The virtues (punyas) acquired throughout the life are spent in Paradise, the sins (papas) are paid in the Hell. I remember, for instance, a story about a saintly king, who had lead an exemplary life, and after he died he went a long time in Paradise (the life and the level of bliss were a matter of collected punyas), but also a short time in Hell (because he had let a bird die, once). So, between different incarnations there are also times spent at various levels of Paradise or Hell. Karma would be then not the accumulated virtues and sins (I used to think like this before), but the information (kind of a subtle DNA) which remain after the experiences these virtues and sins have been turned into.
I'm not sure I have properly understood this, there are just some hints.

I have a few questions, like the reason why is it necessary to have different dimensions (like this world and the other world) for our experiences, which makes us grow?

Another thing is that Christ is there to break our karmas, so for someone who has actually realized the Christian inner transformation, there shouldn't by any need for reincarnation. The point is to get this state, not only to pretend that one has it.

Ana-Maria

[Isiah]

Ah, but actually, when we die, we don't go to heaven or hell, we go to the grave. We're dead, full stop. Totally unconscious and unaware. True, God's people are in abraham's bosom (peaceful rest), and those who will be judged are in hades (restless sleep). On judgement day, bodies will be reconstructed, and judgement will take place. No sin can make its way into the kingdom of God. Of course, all people are guilty of sin, but those who have had the slate wiped clean by accepting Jesus will make it into the kingdom of heaven, and those who remain as sinners will be destroyed in the lake of fire, with hades, death, the beast, the anti-christ, satan, demons etc. There is ressurection, not reincarnation. We will have new, perfect bodies in the kingdom of heaven.
Funny that the anti's are like . . . how do you expect to beleive that you will make into a perfect spiritual existance after one incarnation?
hello? reincarnations, enlightenment, hocus pocus, buddha, its all alien to judeao-christianity.

[Gandalf]

snip...
Isiah...


Great belief system you have there!

Each to their own i guess!

Doug

[fuji257]

>> Hindus also believe that there are Heaven and Hell. (I don't know about Buddhists, I would be curious to know.) <<

Generally, No they do not.  The tricky thing about Buddhism is seperating asian cultureral trappings and/or superstitions from different the various "schools" or sects.  

Many Buddhist sects much like Gandalf  , feels that hypothosizing (sp) about the "afterlife" is a waste of time.  Many Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation either, but you'd never know it from these boards. (I've gone back and forth on the idea, myself) Many Buddhist don't even believe in a soul.

It's interesting that all the differing sects in Buddhism that it cuases no shcisms between them (like say a Catholic versus a Mormon).  Things like the "afterlife" in Buddhism become less important, or at least nothing to fight about.  It's all about the practice, the journy et all  and testing conclusions for yourself.

BTW not all Christians believe in Hell either, just ask your local Jehova's Witness.