Talk:Reincarnation

Quantum mechanics

If you want to bring criticism of Tucker's idea into this, you have to find it in a reliable secondary source, not synthesize it into existence. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources provided are reliable and none of the criticisms of quantum quackery are synthetic. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Violent Death

There is no reason to include the "often those who met an untimely death" in the introductory sentence. No secondary source does that. Furthermore, "that seemed to him to be able to remember events in a life that had ended" is ridiculous, both because it is poorly written and because it is misleading; many others thought that the child was remembered events from a past life, he just investigated it. Mitsube (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I seem to recall in the past that you were arguing that the violent deaths were an important feature of the accounts. I myself don't care one way or the other and would be fine with removing that little tidbit. In fact, I think the entire Stevenson account is overly bloated in much the same way that Cosmic Latte has argued before. I'm just trying to see if we can reach consensus and so I'm compromising my desire for succinct summaries until such time as everybody has calmed down about exactly how to present this baloney.
2. No independent sources have ever claimed that others believe children remember events from a past life. Everyone who has said that is a true believer in reincarnation and thus it is not an objective statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Belief in the West

You cited an essay in support of removing that information from the lead, which mentions the belief in reincarnation all around the world more prominently than belief in the West. Please explain this removal. Mitsube (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence itself was only talking about the West. If you want to reincorporate a sentence that has a global view, please feel free. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Plato talks explicitly about reincarnation towards the end of the Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.206.108 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

reincarnation

reincarnation sounds very scary to me it includes death

5-27-10

tamalie jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.85.132 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes life, the universe and everything scary, Tamalie. But things get scarier the more we do not look at them. Maybe the shadow on your bedroom wall looks like a monster. If you get up and have a closer look, you find it's a shadow, not a monster. But so long as you hide under the bedclothes it goes on being maybe a monster. And if it IS a monster, then too it is better you should know about it! Redheylin (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you (and all of us) will die one day, anyway - reincarnation or not. So the remark isn't very logical! Commented by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia), 27 September 2010.

Different Than Metempsychosis

This page offers limited information on the ancient Greek development of metempsychosis (a topic of intense academic debate, particularly in regards to its likely Western origins), including details of the semi-legendary Pythagoras, his influence on the thought of two and a half millennia including that touchstone of Western philosophy, Plato. The person who advocated for the integration of the page 'metempsychosis' into this page, while claiming that "all the information from [metempsychosis] is reproduced here" (or something to that effect) is simply lying. That metempsychosis is a key phrase in perhaps the most important novel to date, Joyce's Ulysses, argues for a separate page. The editor repeatedly impaled him(or her)self on [their] own arguments in discussion (see Metempsychosis Talk). If a fuller discussion does not take fruit, I will restore the page Metempsychosis, against the tyranny of a single editor. The editor in question would benefit by soliciting citations or expert review. His or her lack of distinction has been made clear. This is not a question of ideology but basic practices. Unilateral deletion of contributed content is not generally a hallmark of Wikipedia. I hope interested intermediaries will note this. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTES by Jan Erik Sigdell TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT REINCARNATION, THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY

Some facts contributed by the author of the book in German: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma – “Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church” (Ibera, Vienna, 2001).

To die once, Hebr. 9:27: -- “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”, hence: die once – live once – no reincarnation. The Greek word here translated as “once” is hapax. Greek dictionaries tell us that the word can also mean: “once and for all”, “at once, suddenly”, “one day, eventually”. Hence, the contradiction to reincarnation is only apparent and related to a tendentious and subjectively chosen translation that fits the purpose. [Cf. this note.]

John and Elias, Matth. 11:14, 17:10-13: -- John the Baptist is Elias (in earlier texts: Elijah). As a contradiction to this literal understanding, John 1:21 is referred to, where John the Baptist denies being Elias. His words are chosen to contradict what Jesus said! Should we believe him more than Jesus? The Christian view must be, that Jesus knew what John didn’t know. Very few consciously know their past personality and it may very well be that John wasn’t one of them. Or he may have avoided the question, telling only half the truth: “I am not Elias (now, but I once was)”. In any case, the mere fact that people asked him about this demonstrates that they took Jesus’ words literally.

John the Baptist was killed. Could this have been his karma? Read 2 Kings 18:40: “And Elias said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elias brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” [some 400 persons…].

The man born blind, John 9:2: -- A disciple asked Jesus about the possibility that the man was born blind because of what he did before he was born (one of the two alternatives in his question). This shows that the disciple believed in preexistence. Jesus doesn’t correct him in that, but instead indicates that in this individual case the blindness had nothing to do with having sinned before being born. A general conclusion cannot be drawn.

Medieval theology has suggested, referring to rabbinical sources, that the man could have sinned in the mother’s womb (having had “evil thoughts” there), a suggestion too absurd to take seriously.

Two crucified malefactors, Luke 23:39-43: -- One of them regretted and believed in Jesus, and Jesus said to him: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” He will have had his last incarnation. The other malefactor didn’t regret but mocked Jesus. He will still have had many reincarnations to come…

This, furthermore, contradicts the dogma of inseparability of soul and body. If they were inseparable, his soul couldn’t go to paradise with Jesus the same day.

Discussion with Nicodemus, John 3:3-4 and 8: -- Jesus said: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. Nicodemus asked: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” He didn’t see that it would have to be a new mother. This quotation of Jesus is in modern text versions usually translated: “Except a man be born from above…”, and it is explained that Nicodemus would have misunderstood Jesus as saying “…be born again…” This explanation refers to the double sense of the Greek word anothen, which can mean both (and a few more things, too). But this is clearly nonsense, because they didn’t speak Greek! They spoke Aramaic! The Aramaic language has no double-sense word that fits here, but a single-sense word mille’ela = “from above” and another single-sense word tanyanut = “again, anew”. Clearly, Jesus used the latter, since that is how Nocodemus understood it and a misunderstanding is ruled out in the original language.

Later, Jesus says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This seems to make no sense. Here, the word pneuma occurs twice in the Greek text, and has first been translated as “wind” and later as “Spirit”. Pneuma means “wind” and in an indirect sense “spirit” – but also “soul”, that which makes the body alive, the “breath of life” (cf. Hebrew ruah). The latter meaning is common in religious texts. Furthermore, “sound” is here a translation of the Greek phoné, which rather means “voice”. Hence an alternative and correct translation is: “The soul goes where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice [whispering] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born with a soul.” Now it makes sense. Jesus talks about preexistence: The soul comes from somewhere, where it was before, and goes on to somewhere else when the body dies. Of course, preexistence doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation – but reincarnation necessarily involves preexistence…

Whom say people that I am? Luke 9:18-19: -- Jesus said: “’Whom say the people that I am?’ They answering said ‘John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again’.” John the Baptist would obviously not be possible, but the other alternatives indicate that some people in him saw a possible reincarnation of Elias or another old prophet.

Origen and reincarnation: -- Origen’s relevant original texts were burnt in the 6th century. The only texts remaining to-day are the Latin translations by Rufinus and Hieronymus, the latter only in fragments. Both admit in the introduction to the translation that they have adjusted the text to fit the Dogma and omitted certain “offensive” parts. Thus, clearly, if Origen had written positively about reincarnation, they will have omitted that or changed its wording.

Through burning the original texts, the Church has withdrawn for itself the grounds for proving its allegation that Origen would have contradicted reincarnation.

The anathemata against Origen: -- In the protocols of the Council in Constantinople of 553, the condemnations of Origen were mentioned. They were not a subject discussed in the council itself, but this merely confirmed a condemnation formulated ten years earlier in a local synod in Constantinople. The Council instead dealt with the “three Chapters”, three texts by long dead bishops, now condemned as heretical. But before the Council was opened, waiting for the pope to appear, emperor Justinian presented the text from 543 and requested the bishops present to sign it. The pope didn’t come and the Council, therefore, wasn’t opened yet. A week later they gathered again, but the pope didn’t agree and still didn’t come. The emperor, therefore, declared the Council opened without the presence of the pope, clearly against the rules for a Council.

Emperor Justinian wrote in his edict against Origen, in which he ordered the condemnation at the synod of 543, that, according to Origen: “spiritual entities were fallen in sin and as punishment banned into bodies… becoming imprisoned in a body a second and a third time or even still more times…”

The first anathema reads: “If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.” The Greek words here translated as “monstrous restoration” are teratodi apokatastasin. Apokatastasis normally refers to the restoration of God’s creation in its original holy order, which is certainly not monstrous… hence it will here refer to something else, but to what? Does it refer to the restoration of a new body for the soul? This would truly be “monstrous” to the Dogma… This may be a reference to reincarnation, without mentioning it by name. And if so, it confirms that Origen was viewed as advocating reincarnation.

Since the condemnation of Origen isn’t a decision by an allegedly “infallible” Council, it has never been officially forbidden to the Christian to believe in preexistence, nor in reincarnation…

The Council in Nicaea in 325: -- It has been repeatedly alleged that belief in reincarnation was condemned during the Council in Nicaea in 325. No reference to that is found in protocols of the Council. However, it is known that these protocols are incomplete. Parts of them are missing. It is also known that emperor Constantine didn’t allow the Gnostic Christians to speak at the Council and that he gave their propositions and petitions to the fire without opening them. It is historically documented that most of the Gnostic Christians believed in reincarnation, but he didn’t give them the chance to present their views.

The third and fourth generation? Num. 14:18: -- “The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” If this were so, it would be a horrible injustice to punish innocent children, grandchildren and so on for what an ancestor did! And what “mercy” would that be? Such an interpretation is contradicted in Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” The Christian Gnostics interpreted the text in Num. 14:18 as referring to the “third and forth incarnation” of a sinner. That would be just…

Added by Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia) September 27 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.210.183 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Reincarnation

The existing page says that "Christian doctrine" rejects the concept of reincarnation even though 24% of American Christians believe in it and 31% of regular churchgoing Catholics in Europe expressed a belief in reincarnation.

It seems to me that the term "Christian doctrine" is innacurately global. It does not recognize that there is huge diversity in the doctrines of any number of Christian churches on any number of subjects, e.g., the virgin birth, baptism by immersion, transubstantiation, justification by faith alone, creationism vs. evolution, gay marriage, to name a few.

It does seem to me that most MAINLINE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES reject the concept of reincarnation, but there are many denominations, some of which do not claim to have any doctrines, and so, therefore, some may entertain the possibility of reincarnation. It would be extremely difficult to exhaustively research the doctrines of hundreds of Christian denominations.

At the same time, a reliable source--Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distringuished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California and an Episcopal priest--concludes that belief in Christianity and belief in reincarnation are not mutually exclusive. See cites from Quest and Amazon where sample pages are available.

I see value in deleting the reference to "Christian doctrine" and replacing it with "mainline Christian churches" and adding a reference to MacGregor's work.

I apologize if this post is in the wrong place or if I should have appended it to someone else's subject because I didn't see an easy way to do this. I'm new to Wikipedia and appreciate the guidance I've received from Dr. K and a Macedonian so far. I don't wish to argue, simply make observations from my perspective with hope that the Wikipedia community will see value in my observation, or at least that it will spark a discussion that eventually lead to consensus on the subject.

I'm glad that there are people who are willing and able to spend a lot more time on this than I am. Activadvocate (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate, 2-27-2011, 10:30 p.m. Eastern time

I am not a Christian so I have no bias in what is included. It seems to me that every major Christian denomination rejects reincarnation. Christian doctrine is the official teachings of the church, not what people think. In my view it would be right to say "it is generally accepted that Christian doctrine..." and then add a single sentence giving Prof MacGregor's view that they are compatible with a citation.

I don't think that you could change "Christian doctrine" to "mainline Christian churches" unless you find and cite a church that is generally accepted to be Christian that explicitly accepts reincarnation. Churches that claim not to have doctrine are not sufficient in my opinion, as if you included common beliefs of Unitarian Universalism you would also have to say that Christian doctrine included the worship of earth spirits, the practice of Wicca, and atheist Humanism! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. In your opinion then, would it be okay to say, as you observe, that every major Christian denomination rejects incarnation, but...[Professor MacGregor, etc. with cite]}? I'm not sure that this reference to every major denomination can be verified any more than the article's original claim that globally, all Christian doctrine... or mine, for that matter, that most mainline Christian churches reject it. In any case, I'd be satisfied with "every majore Christian denomination."

In case you care, I'm sure a lot of Christians would not see me as a Christian. I see myself as a truthseeker, and I find it in many places. Activadvocate (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate

I think that the adding "but...[Professor MacGregor, etc. with cite] would be OK. I think that saying every major denomination should stand, we know it is refjected by the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox churches. If anyone belongs to a denomination that explicitly accepts it we can then decide if it is a "major" denomination. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I have added the changes that there seems to be consensus on. I also see value in Jan-Erik Sigdall's research as expressed above and in his book, , because he has documented his sources but I hesitated to add it since I'm not sure you editors recognize him as a reliable source. I was unable to find his credentials in a quick Internet search and wonder if lack of credentials is the main reason his comment above has been mostly ignored? I welcome your advice and insight on the value of adding him / his book to this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activadvocate (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to put this post, so please forgive me if I guessed wrong; I'm still trying to figure this out. I thought the system autosigned me but still it's apparently important to SineBot that I put the four tildes at the end of my posts. Not sure why. Maybe SineBot is the one who autosigns my posts if I forget the four tildes?

Also saw a reference to BullRangifer and that user page emphasized the value of verifiable content. I suppose this is a gentle way of saying that Jan Erik Sigdall's on-line book is not verifiable, even though it has a lot of quotes in it from other sources. I continue to wonder who / how it's decided that some people are verifiable sources and others are considered original research. When does one become the other? Do people have to be associated with a leading university to be verifiable? Does a policy make this clear somewhere? Thank you for any advice or direction that would help me understand.Activadvocate (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate.

Yes, it is good practice and considerate to sign your posts with the four tildes.

Verifiable content depends upon many things. If a book is published by an academic publisher or is written by a notable authority in the field, for example, it is generally a very good source. If it is self-published it is not a very good source. See WP:Verifiable sources. hgilbert (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler believed in reincarnation - his suicide and body burned on 'Walpurgisnacht'

I've seen the History Channel documentary Hitler and the Occult more than once. HC is a legitimate resource. Hitler's suicide on April 30 and his command to have his body burned was no 'coincidence' - There Are No Coincidences (there is synchronism). Hitler believed in reincarnation and saw committing suicide and having his body burned on Walpurgisnacht as a vehicle to control his next reincarnation. This is an important fact and should be listed in the article with History Channel as its resource. - Brad Watson, Miami 72.153.60.84 (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

External link dead or is it just me?

I previously removed the newly added In Another Life, extensive multi-media reincarnation resource link because it appeared dead. I am still not getting anything from it but I want to check with others before I remove it again in case it's just me. Does it work for anyone? -- Q Chris (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Meaning

Is there partial past memories remaining in you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.214.133.202 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)