Reincarnation

[Marc O'Brien]

Stories of a possible reincarnation cases fascinate me...

My own daughter, when she was about 5, used to tell me about the house she used to live in before. That it was very big and she used to hate having to always wear posh clothes. Often very little interesting, supposed, snippets of the past were available. When she got to about 7 or 8 she could no longer remember telling me the stories...

Here's another recent story but much more elaborate - much more convincing...

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story

[bootlen]

Stories of a possible reincarnation cases fascinate me...

My own daughter, when she was about 5, used to tell me about the house she used to live in before. That it was very big and she used to hate having to always wear posh clothes. Often very little interesting, supposed, snippets of the past were available. When she got to about 7 or 8 she could no longer remember telling me the stories...

Here's another recent story but much more elaborate - much more convincing...

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story

My now 19 year old cousin told at age 4 about how I hit him over the head with his Power Rangers lunch box.

Kids' imaginations...funny, huh?

Re-incarnation? It's a lie.

[Marc O'Brien]

Re-incarnation? It's a lie.

Hmmm, how can you be so certain that life after death is impossible?

[bootlen]

Hmmm, how can you be so certain that life after death is impossible?

Oh, life after death is not only possible but promised. But re-incarnation is not part of it.

Spiritual life after physical death is the reality. Better get on board with that.

Can't say you weren't told.

[Tool-Slinger]

Stories of a possible reincarnation cases fascinate me...

My own daughter, when she was about 5, used to tell me about the house she used to live in before. That it was very big and she used to hate having to always wear posh clothes. Often very little interesting, supposed, snippets of the past were available. When she got to about 7 or 8 she could no longer remember telling me the stories...

Here's another recent story but much more elaborate - much more convincing...

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-reincarnation-txt%2C0%2C1190900.story
Could be, some of the accounts are very compelling.

Maybe God 're-cycles' some souls whom, for what ever reason, did not mature[?] to his satisfaction.

[Marc O'Brien]

Could be, some of the accounts are very compelling.

Maybe God 're-cycles' some souls whom, for what ever reason, did not mature[?] to his satisfaction.

There are many accounts on youtube, several are incredibly persuasive.

I don't see the god link.

But I am looking for some sort of evidence to disprove my idea that once we are dead we are probably gone forever.

[Andy Schoen]

Stories of a possible reincarnation cases fascinate me...



Considering Hinduism over atheism? :D

If life was created by a non-living primordial soup (by the Creator I suspect), why not consider reincarnation? :confused: Could not the primordial soup from which we came be regenerated in the future? :eek:

[Tool-Slinger]

There are many accounts on youtube, several are incredibly persuasive.

I don't see the god link.

But I am looking for some sort of evidence to disprove my idea that once we are dead we are probably gone forever.
I probably should not have mentioned 'God' as that is off topic depending upon how you might be looking at it.

But yes, the evidence is overwhelming that some of us have 'been here before'. Unless there is some sort of giant conspiracy to just 'make stuff up' then there are too many details of past life accounts to dismiss.

I think that is evidence of a 'soul', although I do not think I can define exactly what a 'soul' is. But it is something and it is real.....

[JRINJAX]

There once was a newly widowed Wife who missed her Husband [George] terribly.
She enlisted a Medium to hold a séance to contact George.

As they were holding hands and burning candles, suddenly a huge gust of wind blew through the room....

The Medium said to the lonely Wife, "George is here".

The Wife said, "George, George; is that you?"

A booming voice echoed through the room, "Yes Honey, its me".

The Wife asked, "George, what are things like up there?"

The Voice of George replied "Honey the sky is always blue and the cows, the cows are just beautiful."

The Wife was puzzled; "George, I didn't know there were cows in Heaven".

George replied "Heaven?,,, I am a Bull in Oklahoma".



This is an absurd joke just like reincarnation....

The reality is, "It is appointed for a man to die, and then the judgment".

[wolfstrike]

considering the conditions most humans live in around the world reincarnation is a very scary theory to me

[k-fridge]

considering the conditions most humans live in around the world reincarnation is a very scary theory to me
Considering the intellect, or more correctly the lack of intellect of many humans; reincarnation is indeed a scary thing.

[bootlen]

Yeah. Who wants to go through zits again? Or English Lit?

[sline-dawg]

Already placed my chips on the table..... No brainwaves.... No more existence...



Well, .... I am still here.....:rolleyes: My waves look more like ripples....;)

[Tool-Slinger]

Already placed my chips on the table..... No brainwaves.... No more existence...



Well, .... I am still here.....:rolleyes: My waves look more like ripples....;)
Ripples, snipples, my ruffles have ridges! :D

[klove]

Yeah. Who wants to go through zits again? Or English Lit?

Or having to deal with folks who believe in reincarnation....................

[RoBoTeq]

I have many thoughts on reincarnation and don't readily dismiss any thoughts of the subject. Why not reincarnation? After all, we are spiritual beings livng temporary mortal lives. Why not recycle those who didn't really do bad one time around to give them a second or multiple chances?

I also believe that genetic memory could be a factor in the belief in reincarnation. If we retain some deeply hidden memory from our ancestry through our DNA, we just may be conjuring up memories of those who passed their DNA down to us. This would make sense in the factor of what we call instinct. Maybe insticnt is not exactly what we think it is and maybe if man would back off of relying so much on intellect, we just mind find the instinctive nature in ourselves.

One other thought that has peaked my abstract brain cells over the years is a sort of reverse reincarnation. Instead of our spiritual beings being reintroduced into a mortal life ahead in time, could there be times when one of us winds up in a mortal life "back" in time? If so, that would really explain people like Leonardo DiVinci, Jules Verne and others who seem to have a way of viewing the future. Maybe they subconsciesly knew the things they knew because they once lived a mortal life in what we think of as the future.

[Pneuma]

If you get a chance watch Rob Bell's everything is spritual. It's pretty wild stuff. Here's a couple small you tube samples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Poi3imQkQsQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cksKWREnDiw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSDChYSPTQ

[Hugh B]

I use to believe in reincarnation but that was in a past life. :)

[lanceonthejob]

At the moment of surrender
Of vision of over visibility
I did not notice the passers-by
And they did not notice me.

[Hugh B]

A couple of comments regarding reincarnation.

1) The theory goes that one earns karma during this life and builds good karma and bad karma. One is rewarded in the next life for the good karma and punished for the bad karma. This takes place thru the form one takes in the next life as well as the circumstances.

Now consider several things regarding this line of thought. Just what is this "karma" that it observes your good and bad, keeps a running record of the good and bad, remembers the good and bad of every individual. Then upon death makes a judgement based upon the record of the good and bad and then assigns a new life in accord to the record.

Kind of sounds like God does it not? Karma has the attributes of God, the same attributes most people claim the God of the Bible has. As well as Santa!

2) Then there is another question. If one is to become a better person with each successive reincarnation then why do we not see vast improvements with people on earth? Instead we see increased crime, more wars, and new and continual social issues and poverty. If each return to earth is to make better people we don't seem to see that taking place.

3) If we are supposed to improve each time we return to earth in another life why don't we recall our previous imperfections from the past life so we can see how we are getting better?

There are more issues with the theory of reincarnation but perhaps some of you can help me answer these first. I am a little confused as to how reincarnation could actually work.

[Zeiss Nut]

Oh, life after death is not only possible but promised. But re-incarnation is not part of it.

Spiritual life after physical death is the reality. Better get on board with that.

Can't say you weren't told.


:)

Somebody believe something that was PROMISED to him .

It is promised therefore it must be true :) :) :)

[Entropie]

Scientificly it´s totally clear! Energy cannot disapear, only change it´s state. We are energy, hence we cannot disapear but we transform into something new. Probably a lot of the atoms and molecules of our body are absorbed by other`s e.g. plants etc. But what about the thing we call soul?

[bootlen]

:)

Somebody believe something that was PROMISED to him .

It is promised therefore it must be true :) :) :)

Like I said, can't say you weren't told.

[RoBoTeq]

At the moment of surrender
Of vision of over visibility
I did not notice the passers-by
And they did not notice me.
Do you wear panties and make up?:rolleyes:

[TB]

"What does Reincarnation mean?"
A cowpoke asked his friend.
His pal replied, "It happens when
Yer life has reached its end.
They comb yer hair, and warsh yer neck,
And clean yer fingernails,
And lay you in a padded box
Away from life's travails."

"The box and you goes in a hole,
That's been dug into the ground.
Reincarnation starts in when
Yore planted 'neath a mound.
Them clods melt down, just like yer box,
And you who is inside.
And then yore just beginnin' on
Yer transformation ride."

"In a while, the grass'll grow
Upon yer rendered mound.
Till some day on yer moldered grave
A lonely flower is found.
And say a hoss should wander by
And graze upon this flower
That once wuz you, but now's become
Yer vegetative bower."

"The posy that the hoss done ate
Up, with his other feed,
Makes bone, and fat, and muscle
Essential to the steed,
But some is left that he can't use
And so it passes through,
And finally lays upon the ground
This thing, that once wuz you."

"Then say, by chance, I wanders by
And sees this upon the ground,
And I ponders, and I wonders at,
This object that I found.
I thinks of reincarnation,
Of life and death, and such,
And I come away concludin': 'Slim,
You ain't changed, all that much.'"

[bootlen]

LOL! Now THAT is reincarnation. HORSE S***!

[Some Dude]

Scientificly it´s totally clear! Energy cannot disapear, only change it´s state. We are energy, hence we cannot disapear but we transform into something new. Probably a lot of the atoms and molecules of our body are absorbed by other`s e.g. plants etc. But what about the thing we call soul?

Adam became a living soul, the soul that is sinning it itself will die.
We are living souls, its our life force.
Reincarnation is more mental masturbation, although sometimes i really wish it where true.

[Hugh B]

Scientificly it´s totally clear! Energy cannot disapear, only change it´s state. We are energy, hence we cannot disapear but we transform into something new. Probably a lot of the atoms and molecules of our body are absorbed by other`s e.g. plants etc. But what about the thing we call soul?

There is a part of you that is non-physical. When you were born you consisted of an arraingement of atoms and molecules which made up your physical body. Those same atoms and molecules are no longer in your body. As you grow you lose some of those molecules which make up your cells and you gain replacements.

Given this fact alone you know that you are more than your physical make-up. You still retain your childhood memories yet the very cells that were you back in your childhood are long gone and those which make up you at the moment were not present during those events you experienced years ago. Yet you recall them and you know you were present for those events.

Therefore, the non-physical you (soul/spirit) or whatever you want to call it was there and remains here today to recall what took place in your personal history even though you are physically not the same cells, molecules and atoms of long ago.

[Hugh B]

After a little research I found that all of the cells in our body are replaced every seven years. Therefore, if I were only a material being, at my present age I have been 8 different people by now.

Of course this is not the case so there must be an immaterial part (soul/spirit) of me that has been there all the time. I carry a vivid knowledge of my personal history of things I have done in my body in the past even though the current set of cells making up my body were not present during those events.

I therefore, am more than physical.

[Hugh B]

Another problem with reincarnation is one that even Buddhists themselves recognized and then changed their own theology in an effort at a solution. Since bad Karma is stored and then paid for in the next life it was recognized that each time around the individual accumulates still more bad Karma each time around while paying for past bad Karma.

This tends to cause an endless cycle of lifetimes so how does one exit the cycle? The Buddhist solution was one must become a monk, live a completely isolated life of total boredom so one does not do anything that may create more bad Karma. Only then can one finally become “sinless” so as they can finally make it and break the cycle.

Reincarnation simply fails the test of a simple application of philosophical common sense.

[Some Dude]

Another problem with reincarnation is one that even Buddhists themselves recognized and then changed their own theology in an effort at a solution. Since bad Karma is stored and then paid for in the next life it was recognized that each time around the individual accumulates still more bad Karma each time around while paying for past bad Karma.

This tends to cause an endless cycle of lifetimes so how does one exit the cycle? The Buddhist solution was one must become a monk, live a completely isolated life of total boredom so one does not do anything that may create more bad Karma. Only then can one finally become “sinless” so as they can finally make it and break the cycle.

Reincarnation simply fails the test of a simple application of philosophical common sense.

I reall really hope i got all my bad Karma back already, i must have been baaaaaaaaaaad.:)

[RoBoTeq]

Reincarnation only fails tests when there are specified rules for reincarnation. If there is no intended connection from one mortal life to another, there are no tests to fail. If reincarnation does occur, I doubt that any two mortal lives are meant to be connected to one another and any discovered other life, past or future, is accidental.

[Some Dude]

Wonder what Marc did to come back as Marc?

[bootlen]

Wonder what Marc did to come back as Marc?

Must'a really hacked somebody off, huh?:rolleyes:

[Some Dude]

Must'a really hacked somebody off, huh?:rolleyes:

Maybe he was just himself:D

[JRINJAX]

I can prove that reincarnation, the belief that you return back to life as something else, is false.

Obama was an unwanted fatherless and motherless Islamic castaway that almost no ever cared for until he grew up to become a complete idiot and like a bug-lite attracted many more idiots to him in his last life.....

Now tell me what has changed in this life????

[Hugh B]

Reincarnation only fails tests when there are specified rules for reincarnation. If there is no intended connection from one mortal life to another, there are no tests to fail. If reincarnation does occur, I doubt that any two mortal lives are meant to be connected to one another and any discovered other life, past or future, is accidental.

One can do that for nearly anything and therefore make it beyond critical analysis. Just remove all specifics and don't even attempt at making a case and then sit back and claim that there is not necessarily a connection between the claim and the rebuttals.

I am unaware of any belief system that includes reincarnation that does not include Karma and payment for actions in past lives. If you know of any I am interested in learning what they are so I can read up.

In fact, I am interested in learning of the variations of belief about reincarnation. I have not spent much time reading up on the subject. The objections I listed in this thread earlier were obvious observations I could spot thru a simple application of fundamental philosophic analysis. And, I have yet to hear any answers to those questions.

[RoBoTeq]

One can do that for nearly anything and therefore make it beyond critical analysis. Just remove all specifics and don't even attempt at making a case and then sit back and claim that there is not necessarily a connection between the claim and the rebuttals.

I am unaware of any belief system that includes reincarnation that does not include Karma and payment for actions in past lives. If you know of any I am interested in learning what they are so I can read up.

In fact, I am interested in learning of the variations of belief about reincarnation. I have not spent much time reading up on the subject. The objections I listed in this thread earlier were obvious observations I could spot thru a simple application of fundamental philosophic analysis. And, I have yet to hear any answers to those questions.
I understand what you are saying, Hugh. Since reincarnation is not part of my belief system, I really don't have any hard rules about it at it, if it does occur.

My feelings on reincarnation are that it wouldn't surprise me to find that reincarnation does occur, but it also would make no difference to how I believe or behave theologically.

[glennac]

I understand what you are saying, Hugh. Since reincarnation is not part of my belief system, I really don't have any hard rules about it at it, if it does occur.

My feelings on reincarnation are that it wouldn't surprise me to find that reincarnation does occur, but it also would make no difference to how I believe or behave theologically.

Yeah robo you might have been a bloody Crusader back in the 11th century.:D:)

[TB]

One can do that for nearly anything and therefore make it beyond critical analysis. Just remove all specifics and don't even attempt at making a case and then sit back and claim that there is not necessarily a connection between the claim and the rebuttals.

I am unaware of any belief system that includes reincarnation that does not include Karma and payment for actions in past lives. If you know of any I am interested in learning what they are so I can read up.

In fact, I am interested in learning of the variations of belief about reincarnation. I have not spent much time reading up on the subject. The objections I listed in this thread earlier were obvious observations I could spot thru a simple application of fundamental philosophic analysis. And, I have yet to hear any answers to those questions.

According to Master Sogyal Rinpoche in, The Tibetan book of Living and Dying, The medetation practice is just that, practice for dying, an attempt to practice dying so that when the real event occurs, one can die correctly and trump any bad karma not accounted for yet, and with the correct attitude, can connect the correct dots, and like a contestant on the tv show Whipeout, can achieve enlightenment. If you die without the right attitude you miss the clues and wind up in "the burning hot desert place", for another go round in samsara (this place) at an undisclosed point in time.

Of course, Rinpoche (a general title meaning "preciouse one") contradicts himself frequently throughout the book, so it appears he's just a master guesser.:rolleyes:

[Hugh B]

For those of you who believe the Bible has authority as I do, reincarnation is not in the Bible but resurrection and judgement are!

Rationally and philosophically reincarnation fails all examinations.

[Hugh B]

According to Master Sogyal Rinpoche in, The Tibetan book of Living and Dying, The medetation practice is just that, practice for dying, an attempt to practice dying so that when the real event occurs, one can die correctly and trump any bad karma not accounted for yet, and with the correct attitude, can connect the correct dots, and like a contestant on the tv show Whipeout, can achieve enlightenment. If you die without the right attitude you miss the clues and wind up in "the burning hot desert place", for another go round in samsara (this place) at an undisclosed point in time.

Of course, Rinpoche (a general title meaning "preciouse one") contradicts himself frequently throughout the book, so it appears he's just a master guesser.:rolleyes:

TB, thanks for the info. I have not yet taken the time to read much on the Eastern Religions. Have a little, just enough to see that a major premise of Eastern religions is that there is no reality and life is an illusion. That is another self-distructive philosophy that hardly requires any consideration in order to refute it.

One of these days I need to read up more on the Eastern religions and philosophies. Sometime when I have time to waste. Or, when I am assigned the reading by a professor. Thanks for the detail TB.

[TB]

One of these days I need to read up more on the Eastern religions and philosophies. Sometime when I have time to waste.

that would be it. I kinda got tired of the foolishness of it all. Weather I was reading the Mormon tri, wiccanism, goth, Buddhism, b'hai, theosophy, thelema, freemasonry, Conversations With God by neal Walsh, or whatever, I frequently had to check what book I was reading, cause they all say the same thing. Aleister Crowley summed up all eastern philosophies as occult. I believe him. They are all summed up for us in Gen. 3. Although it is a waste of time, to read all that, I believe it is of some value for the Eze. 33 Christian to realize the different uniforms approaching are all the enemy--by their own words.

I know you know it, but reading all that BS is like working on a chicken farm--sooner or later they start talking to you, so stay in the Word if you do.;)

[RoBoTeq]

According to Master Sogyal Rinpoche in, The Tibetan book of Living and Dying, The medetation practice is just that, practice for dying, an attempt to practice dying so that when the real event occurs, one can die correctly and trump any bad karma not accounted for yet, and with the correct attitude, can connect the correct dots, and like a contestant on the tv show Whipeout, can achieve enlightenment. If you die without the right attitude you miss the clues and wind up in "the burning hot desert place", for another go round in samsara (this place) at an undisclosed point in time.

Of course, Rinpoche (a general title meaning "preciouse one") contradicts himself frequently throughout the book, so it appears he's just a master guesser.:rolleyes:
Sounds like you also think of him as a master debater;)

[RoBoTeq]

For those of you who believe the Bible has authority as I do, reincarnation is not in the Bible but resurrection and judgement are!

Rationally and philosophically reincarnation fails all examinations.
Especially as a Bible scholar, you should agree that what is absent is not neccesarily false. After all, we pretty much know what Jesus must have looked like as a mortal, not because of anything the Bible tells us, but rather because the Bible is silent on Jesus's physical attributes. Therefore, Jesus most likely looked like pretty much every other male in the region.

Just because scripture does not address reincarnation does not neccesarily mean it does not exist on some level or another.

[Hugh B]

Especially as a Bible scholar, you should agree that what is absent is not neccesarily false. After all, we pretty much know what Jesus must have looked like as a mortal, not because of anything the Bible tells us, but rather because the Bible is silent on Jesus's physical attributes. Therefore, Jesus most likely looked like pretty much every other male in the region.

Just because scripture does not address reincarnation does not neccesarily mean it does not exist on some level or another.

Scripture does make some very positive claims that do not allow for reincarnation. Scripture says it is appointed unto man once to die and after that comes the judgement. That is pretty clear.

From other scripture we learn that all are resurrected to appear before that judgement.

Hardly allows for any kind of reincarnation. It is also important to note that reincarnation is a pretty big event for scripture to ignore. No, reincarnation is not Biblical. Some have put forth the arguement that reincarnation was at one time in scripture and it was removed. That is simply untrue and easily dismissed.

[RoBoTeq]

Scripture does make some very positive claims that do not allow for reincarnation. Scripture says it is appointed unto man once to die and after that comes the judgement. That is pretty clear.

From other scripture we learn that all are resurrected to appear before that judgement.

Hardly allows for any kind of reincarnation. It is also important to note that reincarnation is a pretty big event for scripture to ignore. No, reincarnation is not Biblical. Some have put forth the arguement that reincarnation was at one time in scripture and it was removed. That is simply untrue and easily dismissed.
Come on Hugh, you know the routine; give us the verses that you are relying on for what you are stating here:cool:

[royc]

For those of you who believe the Bible has authority as I do, reincarnation is not in the Bible but resurrection and judgement are!

Rationally and philosophically reincarnation fails all examinations.


If you cant figure out the irrationality of the above statements, then there is no point of discussing logic or rationality with you.

First you state that you are completly tainted as to any judgement on the subject.

Then you state it fails all examinations. How you can impartially examine something when you completly biased on the subject beforehand.

Roy

[Andy Schoen]

If you cant figure out the irrationality of the above statements, then there is no point of discussing logic or rationality with you.

First you state that you are completly tainted as to any judgement on the subject.

Then you state it fails all examinations. How you can impartially examine something when you completly biased on the subject beforehand.

Roy

It is important not to confuse philosophy with theology. ;)

[royc]

It is important not to confuse philosophy with theology. ;)

Yes, lets make it so complicated that only people with degrees can partake in these insane discussion. People like me who graduated at the age of fourteen with just a high school diploma, schould never engage degree wisdom.

Sometimes when reading stuff in here, I feel like I'm in an insane asylum.

Some in here are just plain nuts, no degree necessary.

Roy

[Hugh B]

If you cant figure out the irrationality of the above statements, then there is no point of discussing logic or rationality with you.

First you state that you are completly tainted as to any judgement on the subject.

Then you state it fails all examinations. How you can impartially examine something when you completly biased on the subject beforehand.

Roy

Actually royc, you are absolutely correct on one point there. I am biased and freely admit to it and will do so on any of my threads.

You see royc, I hold to and practice presuppositional philosophy. That is, I know for certian that every single individual brings a set of personal presuppositions to any discussion. We are all biased without exception. You royc, are biased. If I question you on any subject long enough I can expose your bias, your presuppositions.

Those fundamental presuppositions we each hold are ultimately unprovable. Few people have actually examined their personal beliefs deep enough to actually discover their own personal presuppositions. That sir is or can be a painful thing because you open yourself to the most severe examination one can undergo. I have done so for myself and continue to do so as I critique my own worldview while discussing issues as this one on this very thread.

So, the one thing you got correct is that I am biased. I have a set of fundamental presuppositions that I have identified and which make up my worldview.

You have your own worldview which it is highly unlikely you have exposed or recognized in yourself.

The question that comes next is are your presuppositions consistent with reality? That is the next most painful process to undergo.

One of my objectives is to analyze issues and topics in such a way that I am internally consistent with my presuppositions or recognized bias.

Don't try to tell me that you are not biased. It is impossible to actually be neutral. Anyone who makes a claim to be neutral can be exposed by a series of pointed questions as having presuppositions.

[bootlen]

Robo,


Scripture does make some very positive claims that do not allow for reincarnation. Scripture says it is appointed unto man once to die and after that comes the judgement. That is pretty clear.

From other scripture we learn that all are resurrected to appear before that judgement.

Hardly allows for any kind of reincarnation. It is also important to note that reincarnation is a pretty big event for scripture to ignore. No, reincarnation is not Biblical. Some have put forth the arguement that reincarnation was at one time in scripture and it was removed. That is simply untrue and easily dismissed.

Hebrews 9:27. Pretty well known verse among Bible students.

[Hugh B]

Come on Hugh, you know the routine; give us the verses that you are relying on for what you are stating here:cool:

As a student of the Bible who has read it and studied it so many times I assumed you as a Bible student also were aware of common verses that are well understood by most who have spent any quantity of time in the Word.

So, there ya are with additional comments.

If reincarnation were true, over the millennia each of us would probably have left hundreds of bodies in graves around the world. So we would have to ask, When Christ returns for His own, which body would be resurrected? However, Christ’s own resurrection completely refutes reincarnation. He lived once. He died once. He rose from the dead once. The Bible clearly states that we live only once, and when our bodies are resurrected, we will live in them for all eternity.

“And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

Revelation 20: 1 - 15 (too much to type, so look it up) shows that the dead will be resurrected to face the judgement seat.

[bootlen]

Yes, lets make it so complicated that only people with degrees can partake in these insane discussion. People like me who graduated at the age of fourteen with just a high school diploma, schould never engage degree wisdom.

Sometimes when reading stuff in here, I feel like I'm in an insane asylum.

Some in here are just plain nuts, no degree necessary.

Roy

Just remember...YOU are the one who said it.

[HVAC_James]

Wow touchy lol

[RoBoTeq]

It is important not to confuse philosophy with theology. ;)
I understand what you are getting at here, but remember, most Eastern religions are philosophies.

[royc]

Just remember...YOU are the one who said it.

You have been told.

Roy

[TB]

Sounds like you also think of him as a master debater;)

Spiritual master debater, that is;)

[TB]

Just because scripture does not address reincarnation does not neccesarily mean it does not exist on some level or another.

But it does mean it is not nessesary for either our salvation, or our life here under His direction and ownership.
2 Pet. 1:3
I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of [Jesus] the one who called us by his own glory and excellence.
2Pe 1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire.

[RoBoTeq]

But it does mean it is not nessesary for either our salvation, or our life here under His direction and ownership.
2 Pet. 1:3
I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of [Jesus] the one who called us by his own glory and excellence.
2Pe 1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire.
I agree 100%. "IF" reincarnation does exist in any form, it has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation. I'm thinking more along the lines of glitches in the processing of souls or maybe allowing souls a second chance rather then commiting them to an eternity without God. All speculative random thought though. Has nothing to do with my core Christian faith.

[Hugh B]

I agree 100%. "IF" reincarnation does exist in any form, it has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation. I'm thinking more along the lines of glitches in the processing of souls or maybe allowing souls a second chance rather then commiting them to an eternity without God. All speculative random thought though. Has nothing to do with my core Christian faith.


Here are two more scriptural reasons for rejecting reincarnation.

1) Jesus predicted his own resurrection to take place three days after his death. He did not predict his reincarnation. Then he appeared in a resurrected body as a grown adult man not as one being born physically again via a womb birth as reincarnation claims.

2) Luke 16:19 - 31 contain the account of a two men who died. The account clearly leaves no possibility for reincarnation.

[royc]

Here are two more scriptural reasons for rejecting reincarnation.

1) Jesus predicted his own resurrection to take place three days after his death. He did not predict his reincarnation. Then he appeared in a resurrected body as a grown adult man not as one being born physically again via a womb birth as reincarnation claims.

2) Luke 16:19 - 31 contain the account of a two men who died. The account clearly leaves no possibility for reincarnation.

Since the bible claims that Jesus was God in a human body walking on this earth, I would call that reincarnation.

Roy

[Hugh B]

Since the bible claims that Jesus was God in a human body walking on this earth, I would call that reincarnation.

Roy

I am really happy for you royc, perhaps you can start a new religion founded on that reasoning. :rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

Here are two more scriptural reasons for rejecting reincarnation.

1) Jesus predicted his own resurrection to take place three days after his death. He did not predict his reincarnation. Then he appeared in a resurrected body as a grown adult man not as one being born physically again via a womb birth as reincarnation claims.

2) Luke 16:19 - 31 contain the account of a two men who died. The account clearly leaves no possibility for reincarnation.
I never indicated in any way that Jesus's resurrection was some sort of reincarnation and I don't believe it to be so.

As for your Luke parable, now your just grasping at Biblical straws in an attempt to win an argument that no one is fighting you on.

[RoBoTeq]

Since the bible claims that Jesus was God in a human body walking on this earth, I would call that reincarnation.

RoyYou would, would ya? Well, we Christians call it incarnation; invested with bodily and especially human nature and form. We all are spiritual beings incarnate; having human bodies. Jesus's spiritual essence just happened to be that of God the Father. I'm surprised that one went so far over your head. That one is not a tough one for most folk.

[bootlen]

Since the bible claims that Jesus was God in a human body walking on this earth, I would call that reincarnation.

Roy

Get a grasp of the language first. "Re" means again or repeated. Jesus was the INCARNATION of God.

[Hugh B]

I never indicated in any way that Jesus's resurrection was some sort of reincarnation and I don't believe it to be so.

As for your Luke parable, now your just grasping at Biblical straws in an attempt to win an argument that no one is fighting you on.

Careful there Robo, don't get the wrong idea here. I am not having a dispute with you here. Just simply showing that if one takes the scriptures as having some authority then there is plenty of evidence opposing reincarnation, that is all, nothing more here.

Regarding the Luke passage, I have exegeted that passage a great deal and compared it to real parables. I have a series of proofs that the Luke passage is an actual event not a parable. In fact, that could make for another entire thread and an interesting one at that. That would be a great scriptural example of the application of hermeneutics to the Bible. Good stuff to discuss. A solid approach to Biblical Hermeneutics is essential for anyone who is going to read the Bible seriously.

I don't grasp at straws. I do not post claims and then go hunting for whatever I can to maintain my position. I am in fact quite willing to change my position to where the evidence leads. I hope you are willing to do the same.

[RoBoTeq]

Careful there Robo, don't get the wrong idea here. I am not having a dispute with you here. Just simply showing that if one takes the scriptures as having some authority then there is plenty of evidence opposing reincarnation, that is all, nothing more here.

Regarding the Luke passage, I have exegeted that passage a great deal and compared it to real parables. I have a series of proofs that the Luke passage is an actual event not a parable. In fact, that could make for another entire thread and an interesting one at that. That would be a great scriptural example of the application of hermeneutics to the Bible. Good stuff to discuss. A solid approach to Biblical Hermeneutics is essential for anyone who is going to read the Bible seriously.

I don't grasp at straws. I do not post claims and then go hunting for whatever I can to maintain my position. I am in fact quite willing to change my position to where the evidence leads. I hope you are willing to do the same.
:DDown boy....I am taking this subject as light fare between us. I cannot take the Luke passage as real because I do not beleive that once our mortal bodies have expired that we have any physical atributes to our spiritual nature. It just doesn't make sense that we would. So, Lazarus could not send water to hell because water, as well as the described hell, are physical. God is not physical. There is no reason to believe that our existance with God after our mortal bodies expire is in any way physical.

And my apologies for upsetting you about grasping at straws, but yes, that is what you did. Please don't hate me for my observations of character;)

[Hugh B]

:DDown boy....I am taking this subject as light fare between us. I cannot take the Luke passage as real because I do not beleive that once our mortal bodies have expired that we have any physical atributes to our spiritual nature. It just doesn't make sense that we would. So, Lazarus could not send water to hell because water, as well as the described hell, are physical. God is not physical. There is no reason to believe that our existance with God after our mortal bodies expire is in any way physical.

And my apologies for upsetting you about grasping at straws, but yes, that is what you did. Please don't hate me for my observations of character;)

No problem here. It is actually pretty difficult to get to me at a personal level.

We do have very different views on Biblical interpretation. I have several years of intense study behind me and this topic of physical bodies, personhood after death and resurrection bodies as well as the temporary abode of the dead is an area I have really studied over. I have seminary training (not boasting, just background) and am well read on a wide variety of views regarding a number of Biblical subjects. This area is one of those.

At any rate, this topic could make for another thread sometime but only if there is real interest. I guess some of what I post here really would be of greater interest back at one of the theological forums where I seem to get a higher level of interest regarding such matters.

[JRINJAX]

Most of the Liberals I know have been reincarnated as LoveBugs. They uselessly fly around backwards while only doing what they do to each other and eventually make a terrific mess that others clean up.

This is very little change from their prior life, so would this be re-incarnation??

[TB]

There are many documented cases that seem to suggest reincarnation is true, useually only supported by a person recounting events from the past that happened in someone elses life--in the past, that it would be unlikely the person recounting them in the present would know---and many times, unverifiable. This leads me to three possible explanations. 1) the individual is simply regurgitating information they picked up somewhere from a history book or other documented account (or they overheard someone talking about it). unlikely sometimes maybe, but possible. 2) Reincarnation is true, though the Bible pretty strongly suggests it isnt, or 3) demon possession, which the Bible strongly suggests is true, and does happen (along with many documented cases)

[RoBoTeq]

There are many documented cases that seem to suggest reincarnation is true, useually only supported by a person recounting events from the past that happened in someone elses life--in the past, that it would be unlikely the person recounting them in the present would know---and many times, unverifiable. This leads me to three possible explanations. 1) the individual is simply regurgitating information they picked up somewhere from a history book or other documented account (or they overheard someone talking about it). unlikely sometimes maybe, but possible. 2) Reincarnation is true, though the Bible pretty strongly suggests it isnt, or 3) demon possession, which the Bible strongly suggests is true, and does happen (along with many documented cases)
Nice little pat argument you've created here TB. You say that there can be no evidence for the belief in reincarnation, which by the way is exactly the argument that atheists use agains faith in God, and if persons do display memories of past lives, it must be demon possesion.

Can you give any examples of demon possession from scripture that refers to the possessed telling of past life experiences? Are any of the documented cases of demon possession in any way suggesting reincarnation?

Be careful now; there are references to the raising from the dead in scripture. That might be confused with reincarnation you know:rolleyes:

[TB]

First off Robo, why did you conclude that my point was demon posession was the only viable explanation? I didn't draw a conclusion, which means you must have. Why then are you attacking me, based on your own conclusion?

Second, I didn't claim the Bible supports that all claims of reincarnation are due to demonic possession, only that the Bible supports demonic possession as a reality.

[RoBoTeq]

First off Robo, why did you conclude that my point was demon posession was the only viable explanation? I didn't draw a conclusion, which means you must have. Why then are you attacking me, based on your own conclusion?

Second, I didn't claim the Bible supports that all claims of reincarnation are due to demonic possession, only that the Bible supports demonic possession as a reality.
I concluded nothing and have not attacked you. Sorry you took it that way. If you don't want to openly discuss something, you should not discuss it at all.

[TB]

Do you know of any evidence of reincarnation that consists of more than just claims?

[RoBoTeq]

Do you know of any evidence of reincarnation that consists of more than just claims?
Not a one. No more then I know of any evidence of God that consists of more then just claims.

This is why I caution going down this road of argumentation.

[TB]

Not a one. No more then I know of any evidence of God that consists of more then just claims.



Is it your intention to equate the claims made in the Bible, about God, with the claims made about reincarnation?


If so, then please supply the historical, archaeological, biological, astrological, logical, mathematical, and literary evidence that suggests the claim of reincarnation is equivalent to the claims made about God in the Bible.

[RoBoTeq]

Is it your intention to equate the claims made in the Bible, about God, with the claims made about reincarnation?


If so, then please supply the historical, archaeological, biological, astrological, logical, mathematical, and literary evidence that suggests the claim of reincarnation is equivalent to the claims made about God in the Bible.
You are mixing belief with historical events of belief. Sure, we can show historical proof that those who claim to have had experiences of reincarnation existed, and still do exist.

If we are quick to dismiss those who have historically existed and continue to exist on their claims of reincarnation based on a lack of physical evidence, we must then dismiss all of those who historically made claims about God.

All history, archaeology, biology, astrology, logic and math show evidence of are the people who believed and the places where they were when they believed. As for literary evidence, a documentation of a belief is no evidence of proof of that belief.

I am just trying to prevent you from giving those who fight agains faith more ammunition. You are arguing against reincarnation in exactly the same irrelevant way that those who claim there is no Creator argue against God.

[TB]

maybe true, I hadn't considered that, I just ain't concerned with it. Yes, it's true that those of us who choose to believe the Bible, do so in faith, but that faith is placed in something reliable, not an abstract claim. As you yourself know, there is overwhelming evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible and the claims it makes. Because of the many claimes the Bible makes that can be demonstrated as true, the few that cannot, can be relied on to be just as true--reliably. There are no claims that I am aware of that reincarnation is true, that are as reliably true as the claimes the Bible makes, therefore reincarnation is not equal to the Bible as reliably true. In fact, the teaching of reincarnation minimizes some of the teachings in the Bible, rendering themas irrelevant when Jesus claimed they're importance. ie. it is not critical in this life, for me to follow Jesus, and avoid eternal condemnation if I get to be reincarnated and try again. Jesus claimed it is critical though, because this life is the only opportunity I will recieve--eternally.

[bootlen]

Be careful now; there are references to the raising from the dead in scripture. That might be confused with reincarnation you know:rolleyes:

So those that were raised from the dead came back as infants? WOW! I'm gonna reread the bible and find that. I musta' went right past it.

:rolleyes:indeed.

[bootlen]

Not a one. No more then I know of any evidence of God that consists of more then just claims.

This is why I caution going down this road of argumentation.

The resurrection of Christ is proof He is God.

You were saying...?

[RoBoTeq]

maybe true, I hadn't considered that, I just ain't concerned with it. Yes, it's true that those of us who choose to believe the Bible, do so in faith, but that faith is placed in something reliable, not an abstract claim. As you yourself know, there is overwhelming evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible and the claims it makes. Because of the many claimes the Bible makes that can be demonstrated as true, the few that cannot, can be relied on to be just as true--reliably. There are no claims that I am aware of that reincarnation is true, that are as reliably true as the claimes the Bible makes, therefore reincarnation is not equal to the Bible as reliably true. In fact, the teaching of reincarnation minimizes some of the teachings in the Bible, rendering themas irrelevant when Jesus claimed they're importance. ie. it is not critical in this life, for me to follow Jesus, and avoid eternal condemnation if I get to be reincarnated and try again. Jesus claimed it is critical though, because this life is the only opportunity I will recieve--eternally.
Since I don't consider reincarnation in my theological beliefs, reincarnation is not a matter of faith to me whatsoever. I simply don't dismiss that some form of reincarnation may take place. I do not adhere to the thoughts of reincarnation from any of the Eastern philosophy's or indigenous America's tribal religions. I suppose you could say I am an agnostic when it comes to reincarnation;)

[RoBoTeq]

So those that were raised from the dead came back as infants? WOW! I'm gonna reread the bible and find that. I musta' went right past it.

:rolleyes:indeed.
Ya know boots, you are getting as boring as the ultra-libbies on this site when you post crap like this. I am consistant in my posting that I do not have any theological thought about reincarnation, just that there is no direct scripteral denouncement of reincarnation.

My comment that you just took completely out of context, just as the libbies here like to do, was poking fun at the libbies who try to associate resurrection with reincarnation. It is dismaying that I caught you in a trap I set for liberals.

[bootlen]

Ya know boots, you are getting as boring as the ultra-libbies on this site when you post crap like this. I am consistant in my posting that I do not have any theological thought about reincarnation, just that there is no direct scripteral denouncement of reincarnation.

My comment that you just took completely out of context, just as the libbies here like to do, was poking fun at the libbies who try to associate resurrection with reincarnation. It is dismaying that I caught you in a trap I set for liberals.

Oh. Okay.

:rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

The resurrection of Christ is proof He is God.

You were saying...?
Oh for God's sake....literally for God's sake...you are playing right into the argument that those who oppose God's existance with stupidity such as this.

Yes, to those of us of faith, the resurrection of Christ is proof that He is God incarnate. The key point here is faith. We have absolutely no tangible proof that any of what is claimed about Jesus even occured. You cannot win this argument of faith with those who demand proof. The more you try, the sillier you sound.

Do a read of some of Paul Maier's works. I particularly like A Skeleton in God's Closet for the discussion of Jesus's resurrection; http://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Gods-Closet-Paul-Maier/dp/0840734247#

Paul Maier is a theological scholar who writes mostly non-fiction, but his few fiction works are really neat because they utilize currently known facts pertaining to Biblical references and theological thought in order to create a work of fiction that explores the "what if" thoughts we have pertaining to Biblical events.

These novels are very entertaining as fictitious stories while keeping within know truths of Biblical times all in a very G rated format that is suitable for any member of your family. Very entertaining fiction for the Christian believer.

[bootlen]

Really? Heck, Robo, even secular historians of the day claim it happened. I guess they were just part of a vast right wing conspiracy.

[RoBoTeq]

Oh. Okay.

:rolleyes:
That's alright, I still love ya....in a manly, Christian way...of course;)

[bootlen]

That's alright, I still love ya....in a manly, Christian way...of course;)

Oh. Whew! I was worried there for a sec.:o

[RoBoTeq]

Really? Heck, Robo, even secular historians of the day claim it happened. I guess they were just part of a vast right wing conspiracy.
The amount of people who believe something occured is not a physical proof that that something truly did occur. People of faith cannot argu our points of faith with those who only accept physical proof of things. The best we can do is to try to introduce those people to God and let God do that relationship building.

Going by your argument, there really were mutliple gods in ancient times because the majority of people then believed it to be true.

[bootlen]

The amount of people who believe something occured is not a physical proof that that something truly did occur. People of faith cannot argu our points of faith with those who only accept physical proof of things. The best we can do is to try to introduce those people to God and let God do that relationship building.

Going by your argument, there really were mutliple gods in ancient times because the majority of people then believed it to be true.

Eyewitnesses, Robo. Eyewitnesses. And MANY believers who made decisions based on what they saw had a choice. Deny what they knew to be true or die. They chose death. That's pretty convincing evidence, no?

[RoBoTeq]

Eyewitnesses, Robo. Eyewitnesses. And MANY believers who made decisions based on what they saw had a choice. Deny what they knew to be true or die. They chose death. That's pretty convincing evidence, no?
All heresay boots, all heresay. For those who are not believers, the eyewitness's of the New Testament can be figments of some ancient writers imagination and there is no way to prove them wrong. Do you not have enough faith to believe without having to have the same physical proof that those who oppose God's existance require?

[TB]

OK, I think I'm getting it here. There is no deductive logic, or concrete / bulletproof evidence proving the claims of the Bible, but there is concrete evidence, used with deductive and inductive logic, that leads to a compelling argument for the case of the reliability of the Bible---more compelling even than there is for the majority of the things we accept as true, as well as for the case for reincarnation--for which there is less evidence than the things we commonly accept as true.

Does that adequately sum up what we are saying here?

[bootlen]

All heresay boots, all heresay. For those who are not believers, the eyewitness's of the New Testament can be figments of some ancient writers imagination and there is no way to prove them wrong. Do you not have enough faith to believe without having to have the same physical proof that those who oppose God's existance require?

Well, in that case, George Washington's existence is HEARSAY. Heck so is YOURS, for that matter. I have never seen you in person. For all I know, you are a figment of Twilli's imagination.

[TB]

I have never seen you in person. For all I know, you are a figment of Twilli's imagination.

I've wondered that myself. Hmmm:)

[glennac]

I've wondered that myself. Hmmm:)

robo is a bot who got loose on ARP. Programmed to irritate on occasion, argue all the time and challange everyone who posts here. Has some misconceptions of History and Southern History in particular and is very sensitive to criticism or even disagreement at times and then calls that an attack. On most issues he is in the corner of truth, justice and the American way but other times is a real social liberal who appears to disagree with the rights of freedom of association and states rights. Thank you very much.:)

[SBT TECH]

What or how would you "explain away" all the not so hidden knowledge that's contained in the Bible. For instance, it's well documented that we "all knowing" humans thought that the Earth was flat, but God's word tells us that it's a sphere. What year was it we humans learned that of our own accord? Or, why did God make the 8th day of life the specific time in which the male children should be circumcised? We now know why He did that. Or, how did the writers know of the deep ocean crevasses, or of the fresh water springs in the oceans/sea? The list goes on and on. Why is it so hard to believe or is it more accurate to say that it's simply a desire not to?:rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

OK, I think I'm getting it here. There is no deductive logic, or concrete / bulletproof evidence proving the claims of the Bible, but there is concrete evidence, used with deductive and inductive logic, that leads to a compelling argument for the case of the reliability of the Bible---more compelling even than there is for the majority of the things we accept as true, as well as for the case for reincarnation--for which there is less evidence than the things we commonly accept as true.

Does that adequately sum up what we are saying here?
For me this is exactly how things are because, like you, I have a devout faith in God that is as real and concrete to me as anything that can be detected by any physical sense. To those of us of faith, God's reality is probably more substantial then things of a physical nature.

Having once been one who lacked in this faith, I can still relate somewhat to those who have not experienced the awesome evidence of God's existance that becomes such a powerful reality within us.

To those who lack faith in God, the existance of God and the existance of reincarnation have exactly the same relevance.

[RoBoTeq]

Well, in that case, George Washington's existence is HEARSAY. Heck so is YOURS, for that matter. I have never seen you in person. For all I know, you are a figment of Twilli's imagination.
I agree. Those who oppose God do so with a lot of help from that spiritual entity which opposes God. For that reason, logic is out the window on this subject. The reality of anyone or anything written about, drawn or photographed is subject to the distance in time between when that thing or person existed and when that thing or person is being studied.

We have paintings of George Washington which to the very persons who deny scripture, accept as a proof. We have writings about George Washington from persons who no longer exist and some of whom are already obscure historical figures that those who deny scripture, accept. The difference is how much influence is being administered by the evil that deceives us into believing one thing but not another even though the evidence is the same other then the time span between the reality and the telling of the reality.

[RoBoTeq]

I've wondered that myself. Hmmm:)
Hey, sometimes I myself wonder. Many philosophers throughout history have wondered this. The most famously remembered is the mathamatically inclined philosopher René Descartes whose "I think, therefore I am" simplicetically defines us as real.

What more then likely distorts our belief in our reality is that we are foremost spiritual beings only temporarily incarnate as mortals. For this reason, I can see where we at times feel unattached to our mortal world.

[RoBoTeq]

What or how would you "explain away" all the not so hidden knowledge that's contained in the Bible. For instance, it's well documented that we "all knowing" humans thought that the Earth was flat, but God's word tells us that it's a sphere.Where in scripture are we told that the world is a sphere? It would appear that historically, man knew or at least suspected the world as being round during ancient times when sky gazing farmers and sheperds made note of every little thing in the sky. One of the most prominant features in the sky is the shadow of the Earth on the moon, and that shadow shows the Earth is indeed round. The flat Earth stories are grossly misunderstood as far as when man realized the Earth was not flat.
What year was it we humans learned that of our own accord?According to some cave paintings, much earlier then man made religions began to dominate the world. Ancient mariners were not so much afraid of falling off of the Earth as they were afraid of what was in the Seas, below the surface of the deeps.
Or, why did God make the 8th day of life the specific time in which the male children should be circumcised?There's an eighth day of Creation?
We now know why He did that.Please explain how we know this.
Or, how did the writers know of the deep ocean crevasses, or of the fresh water springs in the oceans/sea?These things were all well documented even before Abrahamic scripture came to be.
The list goes on and on. Why is it so hard to believe or is it more accurate to say that it's simply a desire not to?:rolleyes:
My guess is that it would be of help to you to do at least a little bit of study of theological writings that are older then Biblical scripture.

[TB]

Or, why did God make the 8th day of life the specific time in which the male children should be circumcised? We now know why He did that.



There's an eighth day of Creation?Please explain how we know this.

He's talking about the custom of circumcision on the 8th day, because that's when vitamine K kicks in to coagulate the blood. Earlier than the 8th day and an infant may bleed to death.

[TB]

My guess is that it would be of help to you to do at least a little bit of study of theological writings that are older then Biblical scripture.

Since we don't know when Job was written, how can we know if any other writings predates it?

Occult philosophy entered the picture in Gen. 3, but Adam and Eve walked with God before that, and the age of writings does not guarantee truth.

[RoBoTeq]

He's talking about the custom of circumcision on the 8th day, because that's when vitamine K kicks in to coagulate the blood. Earlier than the 8th day and an infant may bleed to death.
I just love learning new stuff. I can actually use this information when discussing circumcision with my Jewish inlaws;)

[Tool-Slinger]

I just love learning new stuff. I can actually use this information when discussing circumcision with my Jewish inlaws;)
I circumcise all of my jewish freinds, they like it very much.

[RoBoTeq]

Since we don't know when Job was written, how can we know if any other writings predates it?

Occult philosophy entered the picture in Gen. 3, but Adam and Eve walked with God before that, and the age of writings does not guarantee truth.
None of which I have suggested.

SBT tech is the one who is saying that because these things in the Bible predated our scientific ability to know these things that they must be true. I happen to agree with the line of thought, however, Biblical scripture is not the earliest known depictions of these known facts. Job, being a Hebrew, could not predate writings that predate Abraham.

[RoBoTeq]

I circumcise all of my jewish freinds, they like it very much.
:eek:Talk about an enigma on top of a quandry:confused:

Either all of your Jewish friends are infants.....

Or, they were uncircumcised non-Jews who converted......

OK, I'm out of thoughts:D

[Tool-Slinger]

Just kidding, I would be such a hero. Then I would not be 'tool-slinger' but instead 'whacker-slinger'.

I prefer my tools.....

[royc]

Circumsicion is a barbaric act upon a non consenting child. It should be outlawed until the age of adulthood.

Roy

[Tool-Slinger]

Circumsicion is a barbaric act upon a non consenting child. It should be outlawed until the age of adulthood.

Roy
And what adult would agree to that? I am hiding my pee-pee from your guys with razors :D

[RoBoTeq]

Circumsicion is a barbaric act upon a non consenting child. It should be outlawed until the age of adulthood.

Roy
And another wannabe ruler of the world is heard from:rolleyes:

I'll bet you have a whole list of things you would like to impose on everyone, don't you comrade?

[TB]

Just kidding, I would be such a hero. Then I would not be 'tool-slinger' but instead 'whacker-slinger'.

I prefer my tools.....

you circumsize your tools ????:eek:

[RoBoTeq]

And what adult would agree to that? I am hiding my pee-pee from your guys with razors :D
The health reasons for circumcision are still disputed, but most American males are circumcised due to alleged health issues.

Isn't it fascinating though that in such ancient times as the Bible scripture was being taught that a prevention of a possible health issue was available? The same applies for the dietary rules for the Hebrews, all now known potential preventions of disease. There was obviously a higher intelligence at work in the developement of scripture.

[TB]

I just love learning new stuff. I can actually use this information when discussing circumcision with my Jewish inlaws;)

It's awesome when I find out that a seemingly ambiguous directive from God actually has a practical reason behind it. I don't know why, probly shouldn't be, I should expect it, but it is.:)

[TB]

Job, being a Hebrew, ....

hadn't heard that claim, can you support it?

[TB]

The health reasons for circumcision are still disputed, but most American males are circumcised due to alleged health issues.



We tend to bathe regularly these days too, back then they didn't

[TB]

Circumsicion is a barbaric act upon a non consenting child. It should be outlawed until the age of adulthood.

Roy

That's nothing compared to the trauma a child endures just in he process of being born.

[royc]

And another wannabe ruler of the world is heard from:rolleyes:

I'll bet you have a whole list of things you would like to impose on everyone, don't you comrade?

At least my goals are loftier then your wannabe ruler of ARP..

Roy

[glennac]

The health reasons for circumcision are still disputed, but most American males are circumcised due to alleged health issues.

Isn't it fascinating though that in such ancient times as the Bible scripture was being taught that a prevention of a possible health issue was available? The same applies for the dietary rules for the Hebrews, all now known potential preventions of disease. There was obviously a higher intelligence at work in the developement of scripture.

Well most women prefer uncircumcised men over circumcised men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13cgVLPtLsQ

Also there are no health issues involved at least nowadays. I agree it is an outdated and arkayic practice which serves no useful purpose outside of some religious beliefs, it is also a dangerous operation even on infants and scaring can occur and it is traumatizing to the infant. Thank you very much.

[RoBoTeq]

hadn't heard that claim, can you support it?
Well, just going by passages from the Book of Job;

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was whole-hearted and upright, and one that feared God, and shunned evil.

20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped;
Since Job was a God fearing man and the references to the God that Job feared is that that God is the God of Abraham, along with Job's behaviour being the same as was traditional for ancient Hebrews, I'm going with the "If it acts like a duck, it's probably a duck" theory.

I realize that there are theologists who surmise that Job may predate Genesis, but none of those arguments are conclusive. Even if Job was of Adam and Eve themselves, there are more ancient stories from other cultures that go beyond the claimed fundamentalist view of a 6 thousand year existance of mankind on Earth.

[RoBoTeq]

At least my goals are loftier then your wannabe ruler of ARP..

Roy
I have no aspirations to ever rule anything. I prefer a life of servitude, as my Lord and Saviour lived His mortal life.

[RoBoTeq]

Well most women prefer uncircumcised men over circumcised men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13cgVLPtLsQ

Also there are no health issues involved at least nowadays. I agree it is an outdated and arkayic practice which serves no useful purpose outside of some religious beliefs, it is also a dangerous operation even on infants and scaring can occur and it is traumatizing to the infant. Thank you very much.
Well there ya have it folks, the YouTube authority on what most women like:rolleyes:

It has been my own experience that 100% of women I have surveyed:D:p;)...prefer circumcised men.

And now, we probably know more about myself and Glenn then any of us really needed to know:cool:

As for circumcision being archaic and no longer a health issue, I prefer to rely on professionals in the field and God's word over Glenn's opinions;
Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [636].http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

[glennac]

Well there ya have it folks, the YouTube authority on what most women like:rolleyes:

It has been my own experience that 100% of women I have surveyed:D:p;)...prefer circumcised men.

And now, we probably know more about myself and Glenn then any of us really needed to know:cool:

As for circumcision being archaic and no longer a health issue, I prefer to rely on professionals in the field and God's word over Glenn's opinions; http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

Well your total count of "one" in your survey, your wife doesn't count robo.:)

Well allow me to give a counter argument for the risks far out weight the so called benefits of circumcision. Thirty five reasons not to be circumcised. This article doesn't even mention the fact that about 4 or 5 years ago a infant boy had to undergo a sex change operation in a local hospital in Atlanta because his penis was "burn" off by accident in the operation. They had to pay millions for this along with hormone treatments for life to the victim. It only made local news coverage and was hushed up soon afterwards.

http://www.circumstitions.com/ReasonsNotto.html

Check it out. Now who's is longest or who can piss the furthest. :D:) Thank you very much.

[RoBoTeq]

Well your total count of "one" in your survey, your wife doesn't count robo.:)

Well allow me to give a counter argument for the risks far out weight the so called benefits of circumcision. Thirty five reasons not to be circumcised. This article doesn't even mention the fact that about 4 or 5 years ago a infant boy had to undergo a sex change operation in a local hospital in Atlanta because his penis was "burn" off by accident in the operation. They had to pay millions for this along with hormone treatments for life to the victim. It only made local news coverage and was hushed up soon afterwards.

http://www.circumstitions.com/ReasonsNotto.html

Check it out. Now who's is longest or who can piss the furthest. :D:) Thank you very much.
What a class act you are at providing "proof" of your opinions Glenn. I post a site that gives specific data by named doctors with over 600 verifications and you post something which cannot be verified;


35 Good Reasons Not to Circumcise:



"I always see more problems from a circumcision than from a foreskin."




- a paediatrician, quoted on America On Line.



I'll bet that was written by some uncircumcised schmo trying to convince some chick he has a good reason for not getting circumcised. Was that you Glenn?

[royc]

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Roy

[bootlen]

Well, just going by passages from the Book of Job;


Since Job was a God fearing man and the references to the God that Job feared is that that God is the God of Abraham, along with Job's behaviour being the same as was traditional for ancient Hebrews, I'm going with the "If it acts like a duck, it's probably a duck" theory.

I realize that there are theologists who surmise that Job may predate Genesis, but none of those arguments are conclusive. Even if Job was of Adam and Eve themselves, there are more ancient stories from other cultures that go beyond the claimed fundamentalist view of a 6 thousand year existance of mankind on Earth.

So you're saying that the God of Abraham could be different from the God of Adam?

[RoBoTeq]

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Roy
Since Roy made no commentary on the link he posted, allow me to. This article pretty much supports circumcisions except for in neonatal conditions, which is what the Bible teaches about waiting 8 days for circumcision.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Thank you for verifying what I have been saying Roy.

[RoBoTeq]

So you're saying that the God of Abraham could be different from the God of Adam?
You come up with some really stupid accusations sometimes boots. Don't know where you got this one from, and I'm not going to dignify your ridiculousness with an answer.

[SBT TECH]

Even if Job was of Adam and Eve themselves, there are more ancient stories from other cultures that go beyond the claimed fundamentalist view of a 6 thousand year existance of mankind on Earth.

Are you saying these "ancient stories" from other cultures precede the Bible in your opinion?

[RoBoTeq]

Are you saying these "ancient stories" from other cultures precede the Bible in your opinion?
Not my opinion, or anyone elses opinion. It is fact as far as we have evidence of ancient theological writings.

There are Assyrian tablets in a British museum dating over 600 years B.C., putting these writings more then 400 years earlier then the earliest claimed Biblical writings.

The Assyrian tablets are of a Babylonian accounting of a great flood, told about with more likenesses to the Great Flood of Noah's fame in the Bible.

So what? God is everywhere at all times, so why would there not be other writings? If anything, this lends credence to the truth of Biblical scripture. Remember, what Christians call the Old Testament is actually the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is a book of stories and historical accounting of the relationship between God and the Hebrews. Why would other cultures not have similar writings referring to their relationship with God?

As it is, the Babylonians believed God was multiple gods. This is not that difficult to understand as well. Since God is as omnipotent as God is, many cultures simply misunderstood God to be seperate gods.

[TB]

Not my opinion, or anyone elses opinion. It is fact as far as we have evidence of ancient theological writings.

There are Assyrian tablets in a British museum dating over 600 years B.C., putting these writings more then 400 years earlier then the earliest claimed Biblical writings. Now thats not quite true. the earliest writings we have are dated to be about 200BC, but that is not the earliest evidence of biblical writings we have. Throughout the OT are references to reading the scriptures to the people, from the time of Moses on, and Jesus validated these scriptures constantly while on earth. We can confidently assert that the 200BC dated scriptures were accurate copies of earlier ones, trailing back to Moses, when He was dictated the Pentetuch.




As it is, the Babylonians believed God was multiple gods. This is not that difficult to understand as well. Since God is as omnipotent as God is, many cultures simply misunderstood God to be separate gods.
Look at the way those gods were worshiped, and the religious structure and it's pretty evident that it wasn't just a misunderstanding.

[RoBoTeq]

Now thats not quite true. the earliest writings we have are dated to be about 200BC, but that is not the earliest evidence of biblical writings we have. Throughout the OT are references to reading the scriptures to the people, from the time of Moses on, and Jesus validated these scriptures constantly while on earth. We can confidently assert that the 200BC dated scriptures were accurate copies of earlier ones, trailing back to Moses, when He was dictated the Pentetuch.I agree...BUT; we are back to relying on the Bible to prove the Bible. I am 55 years old, but I can claim to have been in WWII or the Trojan wars for all that matters. You can't disprove that claim, but you certainly aren't going to be prone to believe it either, if my claim is all there is to go by. For those who oppose the Bible as a valid historical record, we cannot convince them to accept what persons in the Bible make claim to.

So, we are left with artifacts which, as I have referenced "for now", show that the Assyrian accounting of the Babylonian events similar to Biblical events predated the Bible.

Again, as a believing Christian, I am not disagreeing with your take on this. I am simply playing devil's advocate in how those who do not have our faith in God must see this issue. They are not wrong by any means that can be proven.




Look at the way those gods were worshiped, and the religious structure and it's pretty evident that it wasn't just a misunderstanding. In this, I disagree. By studying the cultures and attitudes of ancient times in the Middle East, I can somewhat put myself in the mindset of those who never had the benefit of being taught Judaic/Christian scripture. Once we know a thing, it is very difficult for us to relate to not having known that thing. When as children, we wrote on walls with crayons, we did not know it was a wrong thing to do. In fact, it seemed to be a very right and wonderful thing to do. Once we were tauhgt the wrongness of our actions, it is impossible to think of those actions again as we thought of them as a child.

[SBT TECH]

Not my opinion, or anyone elses opinion. It is fact as far as we have evidence of ancient theological writings.

There are Assyrian tablets in a British museum dating over 600 years B.C., putting these writings more then 400 years earlier then the earliest claimed Biblical writings.

The Assyrian tablets are of a Babylonian accounting of a great flood, told about with more likenesses to the Great Flood of Noah's fame in the Bible.

So what? God is everywhere at all times, so why would there not be other writings? If anything, this lends credence to the truth of Biblical scripture. Remember, what Christians call the Old Testament is actually the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is a book of stories and historical accounting of the relationship between God and the Hebrews. Why would other cultures not have similar writings referring to their relationship with God?

As it is, the Babylonians believed God was multiple gods. This is not that difficult to understand as well. Since God is as omnipotent as God is, many cultures simply misunderstood God to be seperate gods.

How is it that these tablets are dated thus making them some 400 years older than the Bible or the earliest copy that we have? Is it by carbon dating or what?

[RoBoTeq]

How is it that these tablets are dated thus making them some 400 years older than the Bible or the earliest copy that we have? Is it by carbon dating or what?
I'm not going to get into the dating method debate. All of these artifacts are dated in pretty much the same way, which means that relatively speaking, they are at least in a proper sequence time wise.

I don't look for ways to make what I believe credible. I take all of this with a grain of salt and an open mind as to the possibility of error. I do with with "ALL" of the data, not just the data that goes against a presupposed position. It makes no difference to my belief in God if those who compossed the Bible(s) borrowed from the Assyrians, if the Assyrians borrowed from the Babylonians, if the Babylonians borrowed from an even earlier, yet to be discovered Hebrew source or if they all got the message from space lizards. None of this would have any bearing on my faith that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and that Jesus allowed Himself to be brutally sacrificed in order to symbolically pay for the sins of anyone who accepts what He did and why He did it.