Reincarnation

[Jainarayan]

Uh, recincarnation, at least in Hinduism as I am familar with it, doesn't have people reincarnating into animals.

Yes, they can.

 

[Salvador]

You don't understand the concept. Souls are not created or destroyed. Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be (Sri Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 2.12). There is one universal soul we call Brahman, from which manifestations of living beings arise. There is no limit to this number, because Brahman is limitless. Brahman is all there is: sarvam khalvidam brahma, "all this [what we see and experience] is Brahman" (Chāndogyopaniṣad 3.14.1).

This is still based on the same kind of misunderstanding. Reincarnation isn't constant. There are periods where all entities are outside of Samsara when the Universe reverts to a non physical form. When it recreates the physical realm, then beings start to (re)incarnate into physical life forms.

Also, don't just consider life to be DNA/RNA based, we don't know what bizzare life may of lived anywhere in the Universe, given it's billions of years old.

If life from non-life could have come into being from whom everybody naturally descended with neither divine intervention nor eternity, then there'd be no need to add anything else more complex such as an eternal being into the equation of how life came into being.

 

[Kapalika]

If the earliest form of life came from self replication of RNA and then all life "naturally" descended from this common universal ancestor, then of course, reincarnation would be a falsified hypothesis.

RNA world - Wikipedia

This is still based on the same kind of misunderstanding. Reincarnation isn't constant. There are periods where all entities are outside of Samsara when the Universe reverts to a non physical form. When it recreates the physical realm, then beings start to (re)incarnate into physical life forms.

Also, don't just consider life to be DNA/RNA based, we don't know what bizzare life may of lived anywhere in the Universe, given it's billions of years old.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Definition: "Reincarnation, a major tenet of Hinduism, is when the soul, which is seen as eternal and part of a spiritual realm, returns to the physical realm in a new body. The belief is that a soul will complete this cycle many times - even hundreds of times, learning new things each time and working through its karma. This cycle of reincarnation is called samsara."

Analysis: From a Biblical standpoint, reincarnation is a false doctrine: “It is appointed for man to die ONCE, and after that to face the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

In some Hindu teachings, if a person is "bad" in the present life, they may well wind up as a protected 'temple rat" in the next life. Which begs the question: If one is a 'bad' temple rat in that life, do they further regress to a temple cockroach, with an infinite regression back to an ill-mannered amoeba? What's more, who was the first person on earth reincarnated from, and which power on earth or in heaven facilitates those supposed rebirths?

Reincarnation voids the necessity of Christ for salvation and eternal life. If one can simply 'live again,' then what is the need to believe in Jesus? Therefore, Biblically speaking, the idea of reincarnation is Satanic.

The Bible makes it clear that Satan has been around since before the Garden of Eden. He knows what occurred in the lives of such people as Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Hitler, and every other person who has lived since the creation of mankind. It is certainly not a “reach” then to believe that he and / or his demonic spirits can impart false memories of “prior lives” into the unregenerate minds of men, especially when those individuals are making an effort – such as in a seance – to establish “contact” with a former self or higher spiritual power.

Finally, there has never been any credible evidence that I've ever seen that reincarnation exists. If anyone has a good example of an individual who purported to have reincarnated, I'd like to see it.

Your analysis from a Biblical standpoint means nothing to this Hindu, as the Bible is not a recognized canon in my worldview.

I'm not sure what you're considering to be "credible evidence," but given your narrow perspective based on Biblical views, I can understand why any experiential evidence may not be credible to you.

You're welcome to your own personal views, but rest assured, they are not mine, and any analysis based on the Bible will fall on deaf ears. Bring me an analysis based in science and then we can talk.

 

[Salvador]

This is still based on the same kind of misunderstanding. Reincarnation isn't constant. There are periods where all entities are outside of Samsara when the Universe reverts to a non physical form. When it recreates the physical realm, then beings start to (re)incarnate into physical life forms.

Also, don't just consider life to be DNA/RNA based, we don't know what bizzare life may of lived anywhere in the Universe, given it's billions of years old.

If life from non-life could have come into being from whom everybody naturally descended with neither divine intervention nor eternity, then there'd be no need to add anything else more complex such as an eternal being into the equation of how life came into being.

 

[Jainarayan]

If life from non-life could have come into being from whom everybody naturally descended with neither divine intervention nor eternity, then there'd be no need to add anything else more complex such as an eternal being into the equation of how life came into being.

Did you not read this: There is no limit to this number, because Brahman is limitless. Brahman is all there is: sarvam khalvidam brahma, "all this [what we see and experience] is Brahman" (Chāndogyopaniṣad 3.14.1).

Brahman has nothing to do with the argument over abiogenesis. Brahman manifests as it will. The laws of the universe are a manifestation. What the laws do after that is subject to human debate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In a universe where the number of living beings is increasing, there'd not have been enough previous individual living beings in prior generations from which the number of current living beings could all have been reincarnated. ....

If life from non-life could have come into being from whom everybody naturally descended with neither divine intervention nor eternity, then there'd be no need to add anything else more complex such as an eternal being into the equation of how life came into being.

I've often wondered this, but have yet to find scientific evidence. Are there really more living beings on earth now? Or just more humans? Over 5 billion species have gone extinct. Is it not plausible that there may be a static number of 'souls' that just live as different species experiencing different things?

 

[Lyndon]

Hinduism is no more based on science than Abrahamic faiths

 

[SalixIncendium]

Uh, recincarnation, at least in Hinduism as I am familar with it, doesn't have people reincarnating into animals.

You're not familiar with my flavor of Hinduism, then.

 

[Salvador]

Did you not read this: There is no limit to this number, because Brahman is limitless. Brahman is all there is: sarvam khalvidam brahma, "all this [what we see and experience] is Brahman" (Chāndogyopaniṣad 3.14.1).

The point is that if all life could possibly have descended naturally from an earliest common universal ancestor which came into being from non-life having been within the limits of the physical realm of possibilities , , then nothing limitless ( i.e.-Brahman reincanation) is needed to explain how life comes into being.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is one universal soul we call Brahman, from which manifestations of living beings arise.

Is Brahman really a 'soul' though? The term 'soul' never really sat well with me, and for some reason, referring to Brahman as a 'soul' sorta makes me cringe.

 

[Kapalika]

If life from non-life could have come into being from whom everybody naturally descended with neither divine intervention nor eternity, then there'd be no need to add anything else more complex such as an eternal being into the equation of how life came into being.

Reading this was kind of confusing until I realized you are conflating the jiva with atma but I'll get to that in a moment.

First of all, the simplest answer isn't always the correct one.

Second, reincarnation IS NOT a theory or explanation of how life came to be. Reincarnation deals with the atma not the bodies or jivas.

The point is that if all life could possibly have descended naturally from an earliest common universal ancestor which came into being from non-life having been within the limits of the physical realm of possibilities , , then nothing limitless ( i.e.-Brahman reincanation) is needed to explain how life comes into being.

Why do you think that all life has one common ancestor? There is no reason to think this because if life can come from nonlife once, it likely has done this many seperate times throughout the current Universe.

Also again reincarnation doesn't attempt to, or need to, or even have anything to do with how life arises. It deals with the conciousness that is in that life, not how the living part of it came to be.

 

[Salvador]

I've often wondered this, but have yet to find scientific evidence. Are there really more living beings on earth now? Or just more humans? Over 5 billion species have gone extinct. Is it not plausible that there may be a static number of 'souls' that just live as different species experiencing different things?

Most scientists believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

Most scientists believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

As do I, but I'm not sure how this addresses my point.

 

[Spartan]

Thats because there is none. Just as there is no credible evidence to support over 90% of what the Bible says.

Show me ONE (1 - Just ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and present your argument.

 

[Kapalika]

You're not familiar with my flavor of Hinduism, then.

I know some Hindus believe in it, but it's not a topic I've really discussed and perhaps I don't know as much about it but I would ask then what scriptural justification there is for it. I would be more correct in saying that it's uncommon, rather than never happens, I suppose.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Show me ONE (1 - Just ONE) person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be false. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and present your argument.

Conversely, show me one that has objective evidence to be true. Show me scientific evidence and present your argument.

 

[Spartan]

Also there would be no "first" person to be reincarnated since the Universe is eternal with no beginning or end.

Most scientists believe the universe had a beginning. An eternal universe would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. There is entropy going on. If the universe were infinitely old, total entropy would have already occurred by now. Energy conversions would have already ceased and the mean temperature of the universe would be approaching absolute zero (i.e. a dead universe).

 

[Salvador]

As do I, but I'm not sure how this addresses my point.

The point being if life came into being from non-life, there would have been only one individual organism initially from which all forms of life naturally descended at some point in our universe. Right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The point being if life came into being from non-life, there would have been only one individual organism initially from which all forms of life naturally descended at some point in our universe. Right?

Correct, and I see the direction you're taking here, but is there evidence that the number of beings on the planet from all taxonimical kingdoms hasn't plateaued at some point.