|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 29, 2007 22:10:12 GMT -8
Another major difference between religions is their respective views on the afterlife:
There are three main views (and I'm sure various blendings to be found in the wide world of religious belief):
Resurrection (Judaism, Christianity, Islam):
human souls to receive a renewed physical body at the final judgment. This view presupposes that we each have but one life to live before the judgment.
Immaterial Afterlife (Ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient and modern Pagan/ Spiritualist):
human souls live on in a disembodied spiritual state, variously seen as a dark, shady underworld or more rarely a place of bliss
Reincarnation followed by Unification with the Universal Self (Hinduism, Buddhism):
human souls endure many rebirths in the process of perfection. The eventually goal is to lose individuality and be absorbed into the universal self.
Amendments/ corrections/ further thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 1, 2007 18:39:39 GMT -8
There are some who take the position that the Christian doctrines of resurrection/ final judgment can be compatible with the Hindu/ Buddhist notion of reincarnation.
This appears to be your position, dattaswami. Is that correct? If so, how is it that you don't see these two views as contradictory, especially if one is going to take seriously Scripture passages such as this:
Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Believe me that I'm not trying to set a trap. I believe as you do that real dialogue between faiths is essential if one is really pursuing truth, so I submit this question to you (or anyone else) in all humility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 1, 2009 15:46:10 GMT -8
Elsewhere RobC wrote:
RobC: do you see the future of mankind to include a physical resurrection?
What are your thoughts on reincarnation?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Dec 27, 2009 15:21:33 GMT -8
this scripture passage seems to contradict multiple instances in the bible where men die more than once (ie, Eliezer (lazarus) who was resurrected and then died again). Therefore I am forced to take this scripture to either mean every man is to die at least once or I am forced to admit that it does, in fact, contradict scripture.
I think that the concept of resurrection was originally a metahpor comparable to the pagan metaphors of resurrection within through the illustration of the sun dying and rising again, or the seasons causing the earth to die and rise again in spring.
Reincarnation... I guess I beleive in it, but not in the traditional sense. I could not explain here.
Immaterial afterlife- I also believe in this, but not in the traditional sense. Again, I would not be able to explain here (at least not in a reasonable amount of space).
-john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 27, 2009 19:32:15 GMT -8
I think Paul was speaking of the norm. There have been some rare exceptions to the rule- Paul himself says that some will not die but will be changed.
I do think that this passage does preclude reincarnation though.
As far as an immaterial afterlife, I see this from the Judeo-Christian perspective as an inferior state to having a body- thus the emphasis in Scripture on a physical resurrection.
I do agree that when resurrection first appears in Scripture (Ezekiel) it is a metaphor (specifically a metaphor for national resucitation- sp?). However, by the writing of Daniel we see that the Jews had come to see resurrection as a literal event at the Last Day. This is the view that Jesus held. Skeptics see this as just evidence of the evolution of religious thought. But another take on it would be God's progressive revelation of His plan.
I am very curious how/ why you believe in reincarnation and I think this thread would be a fine place to discuss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Dec 29, 2009 13:33:54 GMT -8
Well, I accept the buddhist view of reincatnration. Buddhists believe that each person is "empty"- that is, they do not have an unchanging essence, or a soul, but is completely interdependent to everything else. each person cannot exist independantly of all the other things in the world, hance it is empty.
now, since they accept the doctrine of emptiness, how could they accept the view of reincarntation? Well, it is not one unchanging soul that changes bodies, rather we effect other things in the universe to arise (dependant arising- "pratityasamutpada") through the laws of Karma (which is cause and effect, nothing more-- an impersonal and physical law).
So I believe in reincarnation as depedant arising, not a soul transmigrating to other bodies.
-john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 29, 2009 19:45:15 GMT -8
Your view is not a far cry from the view of some atheists. And the idea of energy from dead physical bodies passing on to other living organisms is of course demonstrable. But I see that as merely relating to what happens to our mortal bodies after death.
So, why have you rejected biblical resurrection?
Or, for what rational reasons do you think the Buddhist conception true?
Your beliefs have seen a lot of shifting in the last year, but I'm still not clear what the reasoning behind it is.
The resurrection view has evidence for it (the resurrection of Jesus). What do you think of that evidence now?
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Dec 31, 2009 1:52:57 GMT -8
yes they have. i am still trying to figure out my beliefs. It all seems to lead to one point of focus, but I am not really sure about all that right now. When i figure it out, I ll tell you.
when you boil it all down, I am really just a very, very religious atheist. But the idea behind that statement would require a full explanation of my beleifs, which i would not explain simply because (1) there is too much to explain and (2) they will probably change anyway (as mentioned above, I am in a shaky area in my faith- "dark night of the soul" is what I think they call it)
yeah I know. That is kindof my point, lol. I do not beleive that we have a soul that exists objectively from the body. the soul is the mind, the psyche. When we die, our conscious state continues to influence the collective consciousness (in jungian terms) and that is "living after dying" at best that it can be made. Without forcing any akward beleifs together I could just say that when we die, we die. Our goal to life is to be done during this life.
I have come to view the resurrection of Jesus as less of a historical event, more of a mythic- yet important and beneficial- one. Relgion does not have to be, I think, historically accurate. Exegesis and removing religious layers from historical accounts is the role of the historian, although it could be beneficial for some believers. Eisegesis and building legends and metaphor (constuctive ones) off of historiy is the role of religion. (perhaps i put that in the wrong words; if one needs clarification, just ask)
I do not think the gospels are a biography in a modern or ancient sense. They are their own genre.
It is not that I accept the idea because it is buddhist, it is that I accept the buddhist conception because it is proven. I just used buddhist nomenclature because it explains it in terms that are easily understandable.
-john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 31, 2009 10:07:22 GMT -8
We all have them- I had my first around your age. As the priest at Chateau D'If says in the Count of Monte Cristo, "It will pass"
Though I don't share this view exactly, some Christians do. But either way, the Christian belief is that we are not whole unless we have a body; thus the need for the Resurrection.
Why? Can you postulate a better historical explanation for Jesus' Sunday resurrection than the one the Gospels provide? I'd like to challenge you to do so.
Granted, in some cases. But the best religion is grounded in reality, and history is one method of discovering reality.
The primary role fo the historian, like any of the sciences, is the pursuit of truth. Going into historical research with the prejudice that "religious layers" need to be removed from historical accounts in all instances is presumptive and reveals an unfounded bias against the miraculous.
In some cases. However, it's moot, because the first Christians were not concerned only or primarily with metaphor but with an event that actually occured in real time history (see Acts 2:22-36 for example)
Of course they aren't in the modern sense. But that doesn't mean they weren't attempting to relay accurate historical information. Luke himself states this as his purpose: Luke 1:1-4.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 31, 2009 10:11:47 GMT -8
My hope is that in the end the point of focus will be that at the back of the universe and imminent throughout it is a Person who desires Intimacy with you, not merely a Force who is indifferent.
I hope in the end you find the passionate Father that received the Prodigal Son*, not the ocean in which our individuality is absorbed into one personless nothingness.
*I'm not implying you're any more prodigal than anyone else; the emphasis is on the Father running out to meet the Son
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 5, 2010 17:20:37 GMT -8
only if you believe in a bodily afterlife. I don't think that is necessary
No, I cannot. I can only repeat arguments that I have heard before- good ones at that. I can give you that, but only that nothing more and nothing less. Is that what you are challenging me to do? If not, I do not know if I can provide what you are asking.
[/quote]But the best religion is grounded in reality,[/quote]
the role of religion is to lead one into reality through metaphors, usually. It is a lifestyle on how to return to living in harmony with the earth and with God. (I do not mean "harmony with the earth" in the new age sense, but in a more literal sense- our superegos disrupt the earth and it's noasphere)
yes of course. I did not articulate what I meant correctly.
acts and other books are definitely rooted in historicity. But they also have their own religious twist on it. and just to point it out, luke was very simliar to the first historian, herodotus, in that he also recorded legends and such that were floating around as if they really occured. It is not bad, just the style of the historian of that time.
and the gospels are a unique form of historical narrative, I should say. They are based on the life of Yeshua HaMashiach, but in no way do they get the whole thing accurately. But we know that they were using sources (ie, Mark and oral Q, M, and L), so they were concerned, on some level, with historicity.
perhaps I have mislead you when I said I am interested in eastern thought. i do not believe that we will be absorbed into personless nothingness. When we die, we die. There is no afterlife. The impersonal force is actually personal as well, in more ways than one. The Dao is not God, but the Will of God.
I think the problem with many christians is that they take the mystery out of God, especially students of theology. God is and is not. He is the alpha and omega. He is great and yet weak. He is and is not. He is good, yet the antithesis of good (for good and bad do not really apply to YHVH, for they are relative human concepts0). He is infinite, yet somehow he became finite.
Do not try to comprehend his essence, try to comprehend how he presents himself to YOU.
lol. that is fine. you must not think I would get mad at you even if you stated i was more prodigal than anyone else. I understand where you are coming from.
-john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 5, 2010 22:34:23 GMT -8
gotta head off to best so I can't respond in full right now, but I just want to say that to the Christian there is still a endless amounts of mystery in God, but it is precisely His Love that is made plain to us through His Son and for that I am not ashamed. To "deconstruct the idea" of "God's love" is a shame and I hope you come to believe in it again in the most real sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 7, 2010 20:55:51 GMT -8
You don't think it's necessary* for a Christian to believe in a bodily afterlife, or you don't think a body is necessary and therefor disagree with the Christian perspective?
Yes, I'd be interesting in discussing (and weighing) with you alternative arguments to the Resurrection. I'm curious what you think is a "good one". That would be a great idea for a separate thread if you want to start one.
But the metaphors don't end up being more vivid than the reality! When you imply that God's Fatherly love (lets say) is just a metaphor for what is really an impersonal force or idea, then my conclusion is that it's a very poor metaphor. A good metaphor points us to something more wonderful and vivid than itself, not less. The best metaphors (such as the parable of the prodigal son) aren't deceptive- they point us to real facts- namely a personal God who loves us.
Why do you think this? And again, this is just one reason why the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event is such an important question. You may dismiss a certain percentage of the Bible as ahistorical (5%-95%) but the foremost question is whether the Resurrection occurred.
*what I mean by necessary is that if one holds to the inspriation of Scripture, this would be the natural conclusion.
|
|
