Reincarnation--Fact or Phooey

[SuperFerret]

That is interesting.

Also, I'll believe what I want to believe and since I'm not hurting anyone (though some of the condescending comments I've gotten on the Hype and elsewhere have been grounds for a solid bout of fisticuffs), I hope people can leave me with my beliefs.

 

[Shemtov]

Really? I had no idea that Orthodox Judaism taught reincarnation. I learned something today.

Yup. Little-known fact.

 

[rodhulk]

The majority of sects within judaism, christianity, and muslim, do not believe in reincarnation. Individual sects do, like the jewish teaching of kabbalah.

As per the Bible (since I follow that), it teaches that man is destined to live once, and then after to face judgement. So I do not believe in reincarnation.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It's actually sort of legit, it just depends on how loosely you define "reincarnation". The "stuff" that makes you up isn't destroyed, it just changes form, so theoretically when you decompose your matter becomes part of other things, and eventually that will be swallowed up by the sun, so on and so fourth. So while it's not "reincarnation" like waking up as a dog, your matters' journey doesn't end with your life.

 

[Mr.Webs]

I'm a Buddhist, so I believe in rebirth, which is a similar concept. The major difference is that reincarnation (in Hinduism, at least) is a belief in the same "soul" moving from body to body, like a person putting on a new set of clothes. Buddhists do not believe that the soul/self/ego is static, but that it is made up of a number of psychological factors, and that the process that happens after death is more akin to a lit candle lighting a second candle. The flame from the second candle is not the same as the flame from the first, nor is it different. It's my understanding that those of the Tibetan (Vajrayana) tradition, do believe in literal reincarnation, however.

Having said that, this is an interesting read on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanti_Devi

I honestly couldn't have put it any better myself. After 'I' die, another 'I' shall be born. It won't be 'Me' but it will still be some sort of 'Me' all the same.

 

[The Slang]

I think I get what The Slang is saying. It doesn't make much sense to believe in something when there's no proof that it exists. Sure, there's no proof that it doesn't exist, but that's no reason to believe in it.

Exactly. If I've never seen anything to make me believe a soul exists, why would I believe it? The default position is disbelief until evidence emerges. You don't believe because you haven't found proof that it doesn't exist. That's ******ed.
That's like saying, I've never seen any evidence that bigfoot/loch ness monster exists... But I'll believe it until someone proves it doesn't exist.
How would you prove the non-existence of something that's never been discovered?

We know for a fact that conciousness is generated by the brain. When you alter the brain you alter the consciousness. Nobody has ever witnessed a conciousness without a brain. So until someone can demonstrate that a soul exists, the logical conclusion is that consciousness stops when the brain ceases to function. This is supported by all evidence in the observable world... a soul however is a total assumption. That's why it doesn't make sense to say 'there's no proof either way'.

Obviously people are free to believe what they want, but I think it's irresponsible to believe something just cause it makes you feel good.

 

[Mr.Webs]

While I do see your point, and in a way I agree with you, isn't all we have in life believing in things that make us feel good? Just to be happy, and as long as that happiness doesn't cost anyone else anything, we should leave them to it? I believe in love, even though there are arguments against it's true existance. But my faith gives me joy in that. It's not irresponsible. Naive, maybe. But I don't think irresponsible.

 

[The Slang]

I understand that's true for most people. But we are all indebted to the scientific minority who actually placed research and experimentation over their personal feelings. It's not faith that brought us the internet or life saving vaccinations, it's logic and the scientific process. It's observing the real world and demonstrating facts through repeatable tests that will have the same results for everyone.

Think of all the people who have killed themselves or their children, or otherwise wasted this life because they believed there was another one waiting. What about the terrorists who think they'll be chilling with their own horde of virgins if they blow themselves up in a public place? Are the good feelings worth it?

 

[Warhammer]

I consider myself religious (non-denominational Christian to be exact), but I like to think that science and religion coexist. I'm also a fan of science. I like to be open minded about alot of things. There was this one documentary scientifically explaining how the plagues of Egypt occurred (and in a way, discrediting the plagues as truly supernatural events). It was super interesting what the documentary stated so I like to think that that's probably what really happened but since God was in the picture, it was according to His will and that's how He decided to do it. Bam, no clash between science and religion.

 

[The Slang]

So God killed a bunch of innocent children for the crimes of the egyptians... but through an entirely natural means. That's nice.
Also, when God tells Moses to have armies kill and rape the surrounding tribes of 'unbelievers' they used science to create swords. The more you know.

 

[Warhammer]

Alright dog, you can go to your corner and count to ten with that stuff. Just for once, a thread like this doesn't have to turn into a religious debate.

 

[Mr.Webs]

I understand that's true for most people. But we are all indebted to the scientific minority who actually placed research and experimentation over their personal feelings. It's not faith that brought us the internet or life saving vaccinations, it's logic and the scientific process. It's observing the real world and demonstrating facts through repeatable tests that will have the same results for everyone.

Think of all the people who have killed themselves or their children, or otherwise wasted this life because they believed there was another one waiting. What about the terrorists who think they'll be chilling with their own horde of virgins if they blow themselves up in a public place? Are the good feelings worth it?

Good point, and it's one I had for a long time, but for every crazed terrorist or hateful homophobe there's three peaceful Muslims and two loving Christians. To put everyone inside a generalization....now that is irresponsible. Religion is not without it's obvious faults, but so is atheism, a religion of no religion.

Also, some scientific discoveries went hand in hand with the religious. Gregor Mendel was one of the first geneticists, but also an Austrian monk, plus the Islamic mathemations of the Middle Ages who gave us today's algebra, to St. Thomas Aquinas, who found a way to join religion and a thinking man's philosophy. It all depends on the person.

 

[The Slang]

I didn't really say anything regarding atheism in the post. Just the existence of a soul, which some atheists do believe in. Some buddhists consider themselves atheists. Atheism isn't a religion, it's just a stance on the existence of a god.

 

[The Slang]

Alright dog, you can go to your corner and count to ten with that stuff. Just for once, a thread like this doesn't have to turn into a religious debate.

Unless you're claiming that what I said does not occur in the bible I don't see much of a debate.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I was:

Dinosaur---Strawberry---Owl---Jack Samspon(Just a regular guy working in Texas)---Me(lunar_wolf)

 

[jnewton57]

Personally I don't believe in any type of afterlife myself. I think that the same thing happens after death as before. Nothing. Seems a step up from hell or whatever i'm told i'll be going to by some people

 

[Spider-Who?]

So God killed a bunch of innocent children for the crimes of the egyptians... but through an entirely natural means. That's nice.
Also, when God tells Moses to have armies kill and rape the surrounding tribes of 'unbelievers' they used science to create swords. The more you know.

Well, actually, the passage you're referring to (Numbers 31:18) doesn't mention sex or rape at all. Looking at the text, (and historical/cultural situation of the time); Moses commanded that the "spoils of war" were to be collected and distributed throughout the tribes of Israel. This included virgins, however, not for any sexual purpose, as what they considered to qualify as a "virgin" was more than just whether or not they had slept with a man, but more importantly, whether or not they could bear children. With that in mind, most of these virgins were only children. The line "keep them for yourselves" is not meant in a sexual light; Most spoils of war were given as offerings to God, so when Moses said to "keep the virgins for yourselves" (which is actually a poor translation from the original text); he meant to not give them as an offering to God (ie: not sacrifice/kill them). They were then to raise these children under the Israelite teachings and religion. Totally different from "running around the country and raping and killing everyone in sight".

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

So God killed a bunch of innocent children for the crimes of the egyptians... but through an entirely natural means. That's nice.
Also, when God tells Moses to have armies kill and rape the surrounding tribes of 'unbelievers' they used science to create swords. The more you know.

Alright dog, you can go to your corner and count to ten with that stuff. Just for once, a thread like this doesn't have to turn into a religious debate.

I'm sorry, but he makes a good point. Barbarism is barbarism, and it doesn't really make it any better than we can explain genocide by natural means, as if it would be any less callous if it were just magic.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Well, actually, the passage you're referring to (Numbers 31:18) doesn't mention sex or rape at all. Looking at the text, (and historical/cultural situation of the time); Moses commanded that the "spoils of war" were to be collected and distributed throughout the tribes of Israel. This included virgins, however, not for any sexual purpose, as what they considered to qualify as a "virgin" was more than just whether or not they had slept with a man, but more importantly, whether or not they could bear children. With that in mind, most of these virgins were only children. The line "keep them for yourselves" is not meant in a sexual light; Most spoils of war were given as offerings to God, so when Moses said to "keep the virgins for yourselves" (which is actually a poor translation from the original text); he meant to not give them as an offering to God (ie: not sacrifice/kill them). They were then to raise these children under the Israelite teachings and religion. Totally different from "running around the country and raping and killing everyone in sight".

Murder the parents, but keep the kids. Outstanding

When Genesis says "so we may know them", the term "know" at the time it was redacted into English is actually very sexual, and basically amounts to rape. Rape was pretty common in the Bible, and is never explicitly outlawed, in fact it's a perfectly legitimate gateway to marriage. In Genesis, the passage I refer to, a concubine is offered up as a rape victim so the male visitor will be spared a merciless beating. While I realize you want to whitewash Moses, he was both a murderer, and more than likely encouraged the rape of women during his sieges, it's all right there in the text, and lines up with much of what is known about people from that time period.

 

[Shemtov]

The majority of sects within judaism, christianity, and muslim, do not believe in reincarnation. Individual sects do, like the jewish teaching of kabbalah.

As per the Bible (since I follow that), it teaches that man is destined to live once, and then after to face judgement. So I do not believe in reincarnation.

Qabbalah isn't a sect. And, yes, the Majority of Jews (Or Christians or Muslims or any other member of an Abrahamic Religion) don't beleive in reincarnation, most Orthodox Jews do.


Also, people, we've had the ten plague related arguement before and it got nowhere. Threads were closed, people were probated, and it all ended in tears.

 

[Manic]

Amazing. This is supposed to be a discussion about reincarnation-- something observed mainly by orthodox Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs--yet somehow certain people have managed to start an argument about the freaking Bible.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I say phooey. And not because I'm an atheist but because of perceptual reality.


If reincarnation exists but no one knows or remembers anything about it, then is that really existence?


It's like the ol' tree in the forest argument. And I say it doesn't.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I once dated a chick who believed she was the reincarnation of her mother's sister (who died in a car accident as a teenager). Being naturally curious, I asked her what made her think that, and her first response was "because my mother named me after her".

With her in mind, I wonder how many people say they believe in reincarnation as a way to be "spiritual" but without all the "guilt" of established religions.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I like how most people are reincarnated famous people. Was anyone ever a dishwasher in a past life?

 

[Manic]

I'm pretty sure I was royalty in a past life. In another life, I was part of the aristocracy. In yet another life, I was some idiot's snide butler.









No, wait... that's Blackadder.