Quote from JohnnyK:
Why so easy to believe in resurrection, and not reincarnation?
JohnnnK
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Do you see what you are saying here? You don't believe in the resurrection and probably think that it is illogical and unsupported. And now you are essentially saying, "Believing in reincarnation is really no different that believing in a resurrection."
I think you are essentially admitting that you believe simply out of faith w/ little evidence?
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
But forget just for a minute that I'm a Christian if you can.
There are many ways to explain these kind of incidents that have nothing to do with reincarnation. And that's what I'm getting at. Why accept the idea of reincarnation so casually?
The New Age version of reincarnation especially does not make sense because there is so much population growth in the last 100-200 years. There is simply no way for people to have had any decent number of past lives. The only way around this, which is the eastern version of reincarnation, is to include the animal kingdom. But the New Age version only gives people a few lives which of course defeats the whole concept behind it: perfecting the soul over multiple and many past lives.
I'm just asking, "Why build all your theories on something that is so mathematically weak?"
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Actually, only in the gnostic gospels which no Catholic or Protestant Christian would accept...
And there's another problem: reincarnation makes Jesus' death completely unnecessary. If man can achieve enlightenment/Nirvana/godhood without the cross by going through myriad lives, then obviously there is no need for a Savior. So trust me: the great majority of orthodox Christians over the years would never even think of accepting reincarnation. I'm not saying there hasn't been anyone who hasn't flirted with it, but it all comes down to one question: does man need a Savior or not?
Quote from JohnnyK:
I think it is christianity that believes with not much evidence. There are four people who said they saw something and wrote down what they think they saw. These are less credible because their testimony is controlled by a less than credible institution.
From more contemporary, credible, multiple, uncorreleated sources, I have dowsed that there is a high probability that the Master resurrected himself. I have some confidence in a very high probability factor. I believe in my ability to factor this probability from resonant sources.
Even so, there is an equal or greater probability factor for reincarnations based on a preponderance of evidence that is weightier than four people who said they saw Jesus after he was crucified. That's all you have, yes?
People die on the operating table and come back with a wider perspective, including reincarnations. That is just one other example.
People explore sans-physical body and come back with the same viewpoints...traveling back in time, here and there.
Virtually all channeled info takes this aspect for granted. No one is even attempting to prove something so obvious. It's no big deal unless it threatens your identity.
Quote from JohnnyK:
You mean a few is not enough, but one is ok for christians? I've heard of as many as 50. We also have 450,000 years timeline to work with. We've had great civilizations come and go...Mu and Atlantis recently. The math works out fine.
Question: What do you plan to do when you get to heaven? Imagine you have been there ten thousand years...what is important to you? You have all of eternity. How will you occupy the next million years?
Quote from JohnnyK:
"Only" the gnostic gospels? But what if those were the ones that had reincarnation right? Now you are relying on the C church to tell you what's what?
You have to ask, what was saved? And from what?
To understand the cross you'ld have to understand the problem. You don't understand the problem so the cross is a mystery that doesn't fit your prejudices about reality.
What does the cross mean to you?
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I agree that every person has to make a choice between the message communicated by the gnostic gospels and that of the traditional. These were two competing set of writings that have diametrically opposed ideas.
And you cannot explain away the idea of the cross to traditional Christians. There's no way to New Age-ify it. It's either self-effort or it's the Cross. There's no way to blend those two concepts as they are mutually exclusive...
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I agree that every person has to make a choice between the message communicated by the gnostic gospels and that of the traditional. These were two competing set of writings that have diametrically opposed ideas.
And you cannot explain away the idea of the cross to traditional Christians. There's no way to New Age-ify it. It's either self-effort or it's the Cross. There's no way to blend those two concepts as they are mutually exclusive...