• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God in sikhism more loving than Christian God

ecco

Veteran Member
From what I know, and I could well be wrong...

The problem with reincarnation is that it is tied to the caste system. In the caste system, if you do good you get reincarnated into a higher caste. If not, down you go. Considering how many people are living in slums in India, it appears that many have a difficult time working their way up the ladder.

This doesn't seem to be what a loving god would want.

Rather, it seems something that man made up to keep the low-level people in their place. By promising if they just shut up and do the menial work the upper classes need, the next time will be better. It's just another way man found to enslave his fellow man.
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
From what I know, and I could well be wrong...

The problem with reincarnation is that it is tied to the caste system. In the caste system, if you do good you get reincarnated into a higher caste. If not, down you go. Considering how many people are living in slums in India, it appears that many have a difficult time working their way up the ladder.

This doesn't seem to be what a loving god would want.

Rather, it seems something that man made up to keep the low-level people in their place. By promising if they just shut up and do the menial work the upper classes need, the next time will be better. It's just another way man found to enslave his fellow man.

There is no caste system in Sikhism and Buddhism. Hare krishna also has no caste system. Judaism believes in reincarnation, and they do not have a caste system either.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think you are describing the "Christianity" that was founded on apostate Christians.
The Christians of the first century - the followers of Jesus, believed none of this.
They believe what Jesus taught, and what was taught by the prophets... which is, that all people will get a second chance.
It is only the ones who do not want that life, that will not be there.

(John 5:28, 29) 28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.

(Acts 24:15) And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
Apostate? Sounds like an unfounded judgment to me.
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
@Meandflower Sikhism is a religion that I, personally, have a great deal of 'time' for.

I had the pleasure of reading the Granth in my late teens - as a young Catholic - courtesy of a Sikh friend at my school. He kindly explained to me that it was his 'living Guru'.

In my opinion, Guru Nanak the faith's founder in the fifteenth century, was a progressive religious theorist and mystic - relative to the time in which he lived. He adopted a fairly universalist approach, reflected in the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib ji (the scripture of Sikhi) has 'canonised' poems from Hindu and Sufi sages, such as Bhagat Kabir, in addition to just the literary compositions of the Gurus.

One of my favourite sayings from the Granth:


ਗੁਰਮਤੀ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣਿਆ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਪਰਗਾਸੁ ॥

Gurmaṯī āp pacẖẖāṇi▫ā rām nām pargās.

Follow the Guru's Teachings,
and recognize your own self;
the Divine Light of the Lord's Name shall shine within.

Is expressive of the inherent mysticism at the heart of this 'path'. Likewise, two words: "Hukam" (the 'will' of God) and "Naam" (the 'Name' of God upon which the worshipper meditates) have lingered in my memory all these years later.

So needless to say, you are not going to find me engaging in a comparative exercise on this thread, in an effort to prove that Christianity's conception of God and salvation is 'more' loving or beneficent than the Sikh equivalent.

With all that being said, I do think your understanding of Christian doctrine is rather in need of 'ripening', because your OP is effectively a caricature of what the Christian tradition teaches - one that seems particularly beholden (I have to say) to traditional Protestant salvation theology.

Catholics like myself believe in an intermediate, post-mortem state of purification 'between' heaven and hell.

Arguably, this has many of the 'benefits' that a belief in samsara offers (the cycle of birth and rebirth, I know our Dharmic friends see it as something that must be escaped from), in terms of making provision for a less draconian view of the soul's ultimate fate, than would a mere binary "one life, one chance = heaven or hell" - without needing to fear that one is bound to endless re-becoming or reincarnation in the flesh.

I'm talking, of course, about "purgatory".

Our church has only ever recognised 'saints' through the canonization process - that is, she has declared that "so-and-so" is a redeemed soul in heaven now enjoying the eternal beatific vision of God. On the contrary, mother church has not declared that any human being is actually in the state of eternal damnation - hell may be 'empty', as the most famous Catholic theologian of the 20th century Hans Urs Von Balthasar speculated.

That is a perfectly legitimate position for a Catholic to hold since we only have to believe that hell (which the church defines not as a burning furnace but rather as a freely chosen state of total self-exclusion from God) is a genuine possibility.

Likewise, you refer to 'mortal sin': the church doesn't state definitively that anyone is in mortal sin. She merely identifies certain acts as constituting 'grave matter' in the objective sense - without casting any judgment upon the 'heart', knowledge, intention or whatever of the objectively sinning person.

St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), renowned for the important theological insights set forth in her Treatise on Purgatory, experienced purgatory in this life for 25 years (during which she also found herself in synergy with the departed souls in the afterlife purgatory and had visions of them, according to her works):


Catholic Treasury | Treatise on Purgatory


"This holy soul, while still in the flesh, was placed in the purgatory of the burning love of God, in whose flames she was purified from every stain, so that when she passed from this life she might be ready to enter the presence of God, her most sweet love.

By means of that flame of love she comprehended in her own soul the condition of the souls of the faithful in purgatory, where they are purified from the rust and stain of sins, from which they have not been cleansed in this world.

And as in the purgatory of that divine flame she was united with the divine love and satisfied with all that was accomplished in her, she was enabled to comprehend the state of the souls in purgatory.

"The soul”, Catherine says, “presents itself to God still bound to the desires and suffering that derive from sin and this makes it impossible for it to enjoy the beatific vision of God

After life on earth the soul remains confirmed, either in good or in evil. Hence the souls in purgatory are confirmed in grace…The souls in purgatory have perfect conformity with the will of God…Hell and purgatory manifest the wonderful wisdom of God.

The separated soul goes naturally to its own state. The soul in the state of sin, finding no place more suitable, throws itself of its own accord into hell. And the soul which is not yet ready for divine union, casts itself voluntarily into purgatory. Heaven has no gates. Whoever will can enter there, because God is all goodness. But the divine essence is so pure that the soul, finding in itself obstacles, prefers to enter purgatory, and there to find in mercy the removal of the impediment
…”
(The Doctrine of Catherine of Genoa).​


So, I don't see it as a matter of "and/or".

For some people, who have died in a state of grace (that is, without any serious violations of conscience - and conscience must be formed individually by each person), their purgatorial journey is not yet complete on earth. They need 'time' - although not in the sense of terrestrial time - to reckon with the life just lived and heal from the leftover psychological pain, regret and sorrow for things they got wrong, perhaps with the ability to see experiences from the perspective of the "other person" or other people they might have wronged or misunderstood in some way.

Heaven, Purgatory and Hell are spiritual states of being (as opposed to physical locations) that occupy no location in space and are even apart from time as well, with the souls of the deceased thought (according to time-honoured, theological speculation) to exist in something mysterious called “aeviternity”.

It entails a mode of existence which is a form of “participated eternity". It lies between the timelessness of God and the temporal experience of material beings - to us, for all intents and purposes, it is akin to “no-time” - although this isn't strictly true. One can legitimately hope that most human beings will first undergo purgatory after death, since it seems apparent to the majority of theologians that a sizeable chunk of humanity is neither wilfully evil nor particularly saintly.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI expressed the same point in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi:


Spe salvi (November 30, 2007) | BENEDICT XVI


The fire of Purgatory which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away…

It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace…

46. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.

46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul.

It would go against God’s mercy to cast them into hell, but it would go against his justice for them to enter heaven straight away with such stains covering their souls. The answer is clear: they must first be purified. Thus, we hear the Savior’s warning that “you will not be released until you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:26). This process of purification is called purgatory for it is a purgation, a cleansing, of the soul.

We speak of the pain of the fire of Purgatory because Saint Paul tells us we will be saved, “but only as through fire” (I Corinthians 3:15). What is this fire, if not the fire of divine love?

Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms us and frees us, allowing us to become fully ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives becomes evident to us, there lies salvation.

If eternal hell or annhilation is a possibilty in Catolic Christianity then God in catholicism is not uconditonal love. If a person end up in eternal hell with no escape out then God is not ucondtional love


In Sikism after millions of reincarnations all people will come home to God in the end. And that is really uconditional love
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
I completely agree. @Vouthon is in my opinion, one of the genuinely insightful and challenging posters on RF.

But I do think @Unveiled Artist made a helpful suggestion -- one we can all benefit by when writing posts -- to somehow state the thesis in a way it's easy to find and refer to.

I'll need to brush off my old university essays (all of which got As, incidentally :rolleyes:) and familiarize myself again with the art of the introductory argument "summary" for the lazy, followed by the nitty-gritty for the interested and patient :p:D
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
Here is what. St. Irenaeus has to say on the Carpocratians. See the bolded parts pertaining to their doctrine of reincarnation:



CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.25 (St. Irenaeus)


Carpocrates, again, and his followers maintain that the world and the things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the unbegotten Father.

They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was steadfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God.

On this account, a power descended upon him from the Father, that by means of it he might escape from the creators of the world; and they say that it, after passing through them all, and remaining in all points free, ascended again to him, and to the powers, which in the same way embraced like things to itself...

So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practise them; for they maintain that things are evil or good, simply in virtue of human opinion.


They deem it necessary, therefore, that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of every kind of life as well as every kind of action (unless, indeed, by a single incarnation, one may be able to prevent any need for others, by once for all, and with equal completeness, doing all those things which we dare not either speak or hear of, nay, which we must not even conceive in our thoughts, nor think credible, if any such thing is mooted among those persons who are our fellow citizens), in order that, as their writings express it, their souls, having made trial of every kind of life, may, at their departure, not be wanting in any particular.

It is necessary to insist upon this, lest, on account of some one thing being still wanting to their deliverance, they should be compelled once more to become incarnate...


Again, they interpret these expressions of Christ, "You shall not go out thence until you pay the very last farthing", as meaning that no one can escape from the power of those angels who made the world, but that he must pass from body to body, until he has experience of every kind of action which can be practised in this world, and when nothing is longer wanting to him, then his liberated soul should soar upwards to that God who is above the angels, the makers of the world. In this way also all souls are saved, whether their own which, guarding against all delay, participate in all sorts of actions during one incarnation, or those, again, who, by passing from body to body, are set free, on fulfilling and accomplishing what is requisite in every form of life into which they are sent, so that at length they shall no longer be [shut up] in the body.

5. And thus, if ungodly, unlawful, and forbidden actions are committed among them, I can no longer find ground for believing them to be such. And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that:

"Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men — some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature

"Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men — some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature"...

From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under [the episcopate of] Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them...

More on this from scholars:


Carpocratian | Gnostic sect


Carpocratian, follower of Carpocrates, a 2nd-century Christian Gnostic...

Carpocratians revered Jesus not as a redeemer but as an ordinary man whose uniqueness flowed from the fact that his soul had not forgotten that its origin and true home was within the sphere of the unknown perfect God. In other words, Jesus was to them a fellow Gnostic and as such a model for imitation.

The Carpocratians have been called libertine Gnostics because they contended that the attainment of transcendent freedom depended on having every possible experience, sinful or otherwise. Such an array of experiences normally required more than one lifetime, so the Carpocratians espoused the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, perhaps inspired by Indian or Pythagorean beliefs.

But why do the Catholic Church reject reincarnation if many early christians believed in it?

The catholic church should reconsider its stance on reincarnation. And according to many sources, 25% of catholic do believe in reincarnation even though the church is against it
 

ecco

Veteran Member
There is no caste system in Sikhism...
So when you get reincarnated, do you come back born into a higher economic level and/or a better family or is it just another roll of the dice?

How many times does one get reincarnated or is it just a roll of the dice?




ETA: Just saw this...
In Sikism after millions of reincarnations...

A Sikh gets reincarnated millions of times? That would take around 40-60 million years.

Or did you mean those millions of times divided by all the earth's peoples or by practicing Sikhs?
 
Last edited:

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
So when you get reincarnated, do you come back born into a higher economic level and/or a better family or is it just another roll of the dice?

How many times does one get reincarnated or is it just a roll of the dice?
It depends on how you lived your life. If you was a very bad person you can be reincarnated as an animal. How many times you get reincarnated also depends on how good you was
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
But why do the Catholic Church reject reincarnation if many early christians believed in it?

The catholic church should reconsider its stance on reincarnation. And according to many sources, 25% of catholic do believe in reincarnation even though the church is against it

That's a good question, actually. I think the reasons, historically speaking, are basically threefold: Guilt by association, Bodily Resurrection doctrine and the acceptance of the Epistle to the Hebrews as part of the canonical New Testament.


(1) 'Guilt by association' - the fact that many 'competing' schools of early Christianity - which were in theological disputation with the proto-orthodox (i.e. the Church Fathers) in the Ante-Nicene period - did espouse a belief in reincarnation, ultimately rendered the idea 'suspect' in the minds of the triumphant Catholics (who had clearly won the battle of ideas from the Council of Nicaea 325 CE onwards), when some of the distinguishing 'doctrines' of these parallel sects were declared heretical.

For example, the proto-orthodox (such as St. Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in the pre-Nicene era) objected to Valentinian Christianity, not because of 'reincarnation' (it really had nothing to do with that) but rather owing to that movement's mystical belief in a pleroma (fullness) of eight eternal divine 'aeons' known as the "Ogdoad" in binary male-and-female sexual pairings - representing various abstract metaphysical values in personified form as divine hypostases or persons, including: Depth, Silence, Thought/Mind, Truth, Love, Anthropos (Human), Word, Church - and a further thirty 'lesser' divine aeons that were generated from the "intellectual intercourse" or mating of the Ogdoad (the lowest such aeon being Sophia or "Wisdom"), all of which had ultimately arisen as 'emanations' from the self-reflection or generation of the one Primordial Divine Being, God the Father.

This understanding of Christian monotheism was at odds, obviously, with the proto-orthodox 'Trinitarianism' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, when the proto-orthodox set about condemning sects such as the very numerous Valentinians as 'aberrant' manifestations of the gospel, you could say that there was a kind of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" effect. And reincarnation was one of the beliefs that had become closely associated with many of these 'heretical' sects - including ones entirely unlike the Valentinians, such as the Carpocratians who were socially egalitarian but also sexually 'promiscuous' or libertine polyamorist Christians.

Again, when Carpocratianism was condemned for its 'orgy' culture (though, I think in their terms they weren't actually practising wanton, casual sex - they rather believed that Christian 'communism' as depicted in Acts should entail free exchange of sexual partners as well, in terms of polyamorous type pair bonds but I can well understand why the proto-orthodox thought it was just a religious excuse for licentiousness!), the fact that reincarnation was a central 'assumption' of their branch of early Christianity, made the concept again guilty by association for the proto-orthodox.


(2) 'Resurrection of the body' - early Christianity had inherited a belief in the resurrection of the body from apocalyptic Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Jesus assumes this idea in the gospels as a preordained 'given'.

The Valentinians and Carpocratians (amongst others) both interpreted 'resurrection' in a less-than-literal sense: they understood St. Paul's references in his epistles to rising with a "pneumatic" or spiritual body rather than one of flesh and blood (which he said could not inherit the kingdom of God), as meaning that 'resurrection' was not some distant, future event at Judgment Day but rather an immanent reality of one's soul being awakened by gnosis (saving knowledge) through baptism, faith and love in Christ the Saviour.

Both of these Christian sects, despite their sex-positive stances (Valentinians approved of sexual pleasure in marriage as an obligation for the Elect to reproduce and bring more pneumatic or spiritual seeds into the world in order to have them receive 'gnosis' and then ascend above the aeons to God the Father after death, Carpocratians of course believed in 'free love'), ultimately held that the material universe was fated to 'dissolve' - in the Valentinian case, they believed that it was an 'illusion' (a dream one needed to wake up from) similar to Advaita Hindus actually. As such, neither of these Christianities believed in resurrection of the body.

The proto-orthodox who evolved into the Catholic Church, however, retained this earlier Jewish doctrine from the apocalyptic literature of a bodily resurrection - and many of them found this hard to square with a belief in reincarnation i.e. endless re-incarnations in new bodies.

It may be that the two doctrines can be reconciled - I haven't given the matter much attention myself, to be honest. But I can understand why the proto-orthodox took a rather dim view of the concept because of their belief in resurrection.


(3) The canonization of the "Epistle to the Hebrews": for a long time, this important early treatise languished in a 'half-canonical' state with many disputing its belonging to the New Testament, because it was anonymously written and you needed apostolic pedigree to make the cut:


Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia


Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors.[8]:431 In antiquity, certain circles began to ascribe it to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an explicit apostolic pedigree.[24]


Ultimately, Hebrews was accepted into the canon (universally so) and this caused problems for Christian believers in incarnation, owing to the fact that a plain reading of one verse of the book 'appears' to state that human beings only have one life:


"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment" (Hebrews 9:7)​


Now, I haven't studied this particular verse in the original Greek and in context in any great depth - so it may be that this verse can be reconciled with a belief in reincarnation. But many interpreters think it denies the concept - its the only verse of New Testament scripture that could be clearly inferred to do so though, none other really.
 
Last edited:

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
That's a good question, actually. I think the reasons, historically speaking, are basically threefold: Guilt by association, Bodily Resurrection doctrine and the acceptance of the Epistle to the Hebrews as part of the canonical New Testament.


(1) 'Guilt by association' - the fact that so many 'competing' schools of early Christianity - which were in theological disputation with the proto-orthodox (i.e. the Church Fathers) in the Ante-Nicene period - did espouse a belief in reincarnation, ultimately rendered the idea 'suspect' in the minds of the triumphant Catholics (who had clearly won the battle of ideas from the Council of Nicaea 325 CE onwards), when some of the distinguishing 'doctrines' of these parallel sects were declared heretical.

For example, the proto-orthodox (such as St. Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in the pre-Nicene era) objected to Valentinian Christianity, not because of 'reincarnation' (it really had nothing to do with that) but rather owing to that movement's mystical belief in a pleroma (fullness) of eight eternal divine 'aeons' known as the "Ogdoad" in binary male-and-female sexual pairings - representing various abstract metaphysical values in personified form as divine hypostases or persons, including: Depth, Silence, Thought/Mind, Truth, Love, Anthropos (Human), Word, Church - and a further thirty 'lesser' divine aeons that were generated from the "intellectual intercourse" or mating of the Ogdoad, all of which had ultimately arisen as 'emanations' from the self-reflection or generation of the one Primordial Divine Being, God the Father.

This understanding of Christian monotheism was at odds, obviously, with the proto-orthodox 'Trinitarianism' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, when the proto-orthodox set about condemning sects such as the very numerous Valentinians as 'aberrant' manifestations of the gospel, you could say that there was a kind of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" effect. And reincarnation was one of the beliefs that had become closely associated with many of these 'heretical' sects - including ones entirely unlike the Valentinians, such as the Carpocratians who were socially egalitarian but also sexually 'promiscuous' or libertine polyamorist Christians.

Again, when Carpocratianism was condemned for its 'orgy' culture (though, I think in their terms they weren't actually practising wanton, casual sex - they rather believed that Christian 'communism' as depicted in Acts should entail free exchange of sexual partners as well, in terms of polyamorous type pair bonds but I can well understand why the proto-orthodox thought it was just a religious excuse for licentiousness!), the fact that reincarnation was a central 'assumption' of their branch of early Christianity, made the concept again guilty by association.


(2) 'Resurrection of the body' - early Christianity had inherited a belief in the resurrection of the body from apocalyptic Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Jesus assumes this idea in the gospels as a preordained 'given'.

The Valentinians and Carpocratians (amongst others) both interpreted 'resurrection' in a less-than-literal sense: they understood St. Paul's references in his epistles to rising with a "pneumatic" or spiritual body rather than one of flesh and blood (which he said could not inherit the kingdom of God), as meaning that 'resurrection' was not some distant, future event at Judgment Day but rather an immanent reality of one's soul being awakened by gnosis (saving knowledge) through baptism, faith and love in Christ the Saviour.

Both of these Christian sects, despite their sex-positive stances (Valentinians approved of sexual pleasure in marriage as an obligation for the Elect to reproduce and bring more pneumatic or spiritual seeds into the world in order to have them receive 'gnosis' and then ascend above the aeons to God the Father after death, Carpocratians of course believed in 'free love'), ultimately held that the material universe was fated to 'dissolve' - in the Valentinian case, they believed that it was an 'illusion' (a dream one needed to wake up from) similar to Advaita Hindus actually. As such, neither of these Christianities believed in resurrection of the body.

The proto-orthodox who evolved into the Catholic Church, however, retained this earlier Jewish doctrine from the apocalyptic literature of a bodily resurrection - and many of them found this hard to square with a belief in reincarnation i.e. endless re-incarnations in new bodies.

It may be that the two doctrines can be reconciled - I haven't given the matter much attention myself, to be honest. But I can understand why the proto-orthodox took a rather dim view of the concept because of their belief in resurrection.


(3) The canonization of the "Epistle to the Hebrews": for a long time, this important early treatise languished in a 'half-canonical' state with many disputing its belong to the New Testament because it was anonymously written and you needed apostolic pedigree to make the cut:


Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia


Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors.[8]:431 In antiquity, certain circles began to ascribe it to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an explicit apostolic pedigree.[24]


Ultimately, Hebrews was accepted into the canon (universally so) and this caused problems for Christian believers in incarnation, owing to the fact that a plain reading of one verse of the book 'appears' to state that human beings only have one life:


"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and then comes the judgment" (Hebrews 9:7)​


Now, I haven't studied this particular verse in the original Greek and in context in any great depth - so it may be that this verse can be reconciled with a belief in incarnation. But many interpreters think it denies the concept - its the only verse of New Testament scripture that could be clearly inferred to do so though, none other.

Judaism believes in heaven, hell and reincarnation. And judaism also believe in resurecction of the body. So it is possible to believe in resurecction of the body and reincarnation at the same time
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
Judaism believes in heaven, hell and reincarnation. And judaism also believe in resurecction of the body. So it is possible to believe in resurecction of the body and reincarnation at the same time

It's true that some branches of Judaism came to believe in and reconcile all four positions simultaneously.

My post above was just an explanation of the three reasons, as I see it, why orthodox Christianity has traditionally not made much room for reincarnation.

I'm not meaning to suggest that reincarnation cannot be reconciled - just that it hasn't been historically for the xyz reasons outlined above. Of the three, the first and last reasons I posited were actually the most important I think.
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
It's true that some branches of Judaism came to believe in and reconcile all four positions simultaneously.

My post above was just an explanation of the three reasons, as I see it, why orthodox Christianity has traditionally not made much room for reincarnation.

I'm not meaning to suggest that reincarnation cannot be reconciled - just that it hasn't been historically for the xyz reasons outlined above.

Christianity both catholic, protestant and ortodox should reconsider its stance on reincarnation. Even though the churches have been against it before, they should still change their minds, especially when Judaism also believes in reincarnation
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Which christians churches believe in reincarnation?
It’s not so much that reincarnation is built into their doctrine, but more like they’re either silent on the matter, or liberal with regard to their members’ individual beliefs, or that their doctrine is broad enough to include a more generalized definition of life after death.
 
Top