One thing I've noticed is that many of those that believe in reincarnation only tell half the story.
Foe example when visiting this page, linked to from the "Reincarnation 101" thread I noticed only half the story was told.  John 9:2 was used as biblical textual proof that the bible taught karma.

Here's what it said: 

John 9:2And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"

The question being pretty apparent and spun to represent karma and or reincarnation.

But....the author stopped  there and never included the next verse:

Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

There was absolutly no karma involved....only God purpose.

It should be noted that this occurred when they were coming down from the mountain after the transfiguration when the disciples just go done meeting moses and Elijah...in their bodies...which allows one to ask the question, how can John the Baptist be the reincarnation of Elijah...and both have bodies?

The next interesting "contradiction"  is they thought John was Elijah....but when thye asked him John said...NO.
Back in my Edgar Cayce days that portion of scripture was also used as evidence for biblical reincarnation...but as with the "who sinned" verse..the No of John the Baptist was left out.  Only half the verse was presented.
 

Mar 21, 2011 -- 10:05PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

True, as long as the reader also believes in the utter truthfulness of the Christian Bible.

I can easily understand why the reincarnist (is that a word?) don't.   They believe the bible has been altered.   

This presents quite a problem for them.  For instance they quote the bible.  My OP is evidence of that.   The question becomes, if the bible has been so changed...how do they know the verses they have posted as evidence of reincarnation hasn't been changed?  

Many believers in reincarnation do not, myself obviously among those.

OK

Frankly, I don't think it says much for a supposedly loving and merciful God-Father whose purpose involves allowing a baby to be born blind.

Hmmmmmm...but it's OK for karma to cause (allow) a baby to be born blind???

What is wrong with a sovereign God allowing this to happen? 

No human parent would willfully do that to hir child, so why assume other than the standard excuse, "Even though we can't understand why God chose to do this, we must trust that it is part of God's Will."

Why God did it?  I can only guess.  I think it was done so Jesus could heal him to show that Jesus was who he said he was.  But, the point is...it doesn't demonstrate karma.   It demonstrated Gods will and a purpose. 

The short form is "It's all good," which I personally find a detestable copout that is neither reassuring nor comforting to someone in a difficult situation.

I don't quite understand your logic here. 

In the above God had a purpose.  In the here and now when a child is born blind it is a result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.  Ever since that day in the garden entropy is a fact concerning DNA.  Harmful mutations occur to our DNA and one of the results is blindness. 

Imagine the JOY the blind man had when he could see.  You seem to take that joy away.  perhaps I'm wrong about you but that;s how I see it. 

Now, on the other hand (which may seem equally detestable and nonsensical to you), I find it reasonable that the entity which became this man born blind chose that condition before birth so as to work off some karma incurred by hurtful or harmful deeds in a past life.

I see a problem here.  I'm a grace kinda guy.  As humans we can't "work" off our sins.  Thankfully we have a God that is full of grace and mercy.  Thank God we have a forgiving God.  

If we had to work off our sins in a million +  lives we could never do it.  

Knowing that it would be difficult but wishing more rapid spiritual progress by choosing a challenging life is a noble acceptance of responsibility for one's actions past and present, IMO.

There is nothing more noble that the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross for our sins.  As I said, in a million + lives we can't be good enough.  That is why we need the grace and mercy of God our creator.  The GREAT thing about it is that it's FREE!!!!  Realize you sin (create bad karma) ...and accept the atoning work of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...the King of kings ... when He died on the cross for YOU!!! 

YMMV [your mileage may vary]

I know, my Durango gets 12.5 MPG.

Dot

My latest response is in GREEN

Mar 23, 2011 -- 4:37PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Dot quoted: True, as long as the reader also believes in the utter truthfulness of the Christian Bible.

57:  I can easily understand why the reincarnist (is that a word?) don't.   They believe the bible has been altered.   

This presents quite a problem for them.  For instance they quote the bible.  My OP is evidence of that.   The question becomes, if the bible has been so changed...how do they know the verses they have posted as evidence of reincarnation hasn't been changed?

 Dot responds in this form throughout:  The fact is that no one knows to what extent the Christian Bible has been altered to suit then-current dogma or church politics. It's an extremely unreliable source. Isolated phrases can be compared with other manuscripts and their errors corrected, but that's about all we can reasonably do with the texts we have.

Can you provide "proof" to support that accusation?....or will you retract that statement?

I don't see why quoting snippets of the Bible which people believe suggest belief in reincarnation among Biblical Christians or the Jews is so problematic. It is a fact that the Jewish Kabbalists do believe reincarnation is actual and have preserved such teachings for millennia. I can provide source verification if you wish.  

So what...today current "christians" believe Christ never rose from the dead. does that make the right? 

Your OP is evidence of nothing but your personal opinion.

Wrong again. My OP is what the text in the Word of God says. Remember John said NO when asked if he was Elijah. 

For example we read in Luke 9:19 the following:

 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life."

Did you catch that?  I underlined it for you.  Come back to life....such as a resurrection..not a re-birth into another body. 

Evidence would be citing biblical scholars or texts known to be intact...and we can't be assured that ANY of the biblical texts we have are as the original writer set down since we have copies of copies of copies of each and every biblical manuscript and none known for certain to be originals.

As for your blanket contention that reincarnationists don't believe in the Bible, you are quite mistaken. I've known a good many members of mainstream Christian denominations who, despite the teachings of their churches to the contrary, did believe in reincarnation and sometimes quoted the frequently cited passages as supporting their belief.   

To be honest I doubt they really are christians. 

Christianity is based upon grace. Forgiveness.  Not living several lives and eventually working off all of your bad karma. 

Did you ever read John 3:16? It talks about those that believe in Christ will not perish.....not about working off karmatic debt. 

 

Dot quoted: Frankly, I don't think it says much for a supposedly loving and merciful God-Father whose purpose involves allowing a baby to be born blind.

57:  Hmmmmmm...but it's OK for karma to cause (allow) a baby to be born blind???

Karma neither causes nor allows that. My belief (common among Western believers in reincarnation) is that the spirit chooses that condition before being reborn in order to burn off karma or to learn some difficult spiritual lesson. It's a choice and not something imposed upon the person-to-be by an impersonal force.

Burn off karma???  Interesting..how does the "spirit" cause the events in ones life to choose the "answer" 40 years into their life?

For example, lets say in a past life I was a wife beater.  I even had one of those T-shirts.  Who pulls the strings that allows me and knows the future so that so that I can be ...beaten..by my husband in my next life to burn off the karma?  And, what about the poor guy that beats me? Why??? Now he has to die and be reborn and get beaten..and the circle goes on and on. 

It's somewhat akin to your perhaps choosing to make amends to a person you feel your actions have wronged or to do charitable works as penance for your misdeeds.

Karma works positively, too, in that it provides talents as rewards for using past life opportunities in good ways, I believe, so it's not simply punishment by any means.

Glad to hear that.  So tell me, what's the ultimate goal?  

57:  What is wrong with a sovereign God allowing this to happen?

Why would any presumably loving, merciful, supposedly all-powerful deity stand by and let an innocent child be born blind, a condition that can be extremely difficult to learn to adapt to? No human father would wish this upon a newborn child of his, so why does it make sense that God deals such a blow to a baby first thing? 

Why would any "spirit" decide to be born blind...and put their parents through that?  I think that would even create more negative karma. 

Dot quoted:  No human parent would willfully do that to hir child, so why assume other than the standard excuse, "Even though we can't understand why God chose to do this, we must trust that it is part of God's Will."

57:  Why God did it?  I can only guess.  I think it was done so Jesus could heal him to show that Jesus was who he said he was.

In short, cheap theater to wow the masses. And I've long questioned why Jesus seemed to need to do so much of that sort of thing.

Well, look at you. You know the truth about Jesus but refuse to accept it.  

But, the point is...it doesn't demonstrate karma.   It demonstrated Gods will and a purpose.

You're overlooking the fact that the portion quoted by most believers in reincarnation is only the first part---the questioning Jesus as to who had sinned, the man or his parents, that the man was born blind. Why would anyone have asked such a thing if there wasn't possibly a fairly common belief in reincarnation at that time? It doesn't make any sense to ask if the blind man had sinned which resulted in his being BORN blind. When, other than in a past life, could he possibly have sinned before birth? 

Actually the Jews of that time believed that sin could cause such thing as being born blind.  That's why they asked the question.   Jesus corrected them.  it wasn't the mans sin nor his parents nor...karma...It was Gods purpose.  Read the text.  All of the text. Not half of it. 

Dot quoted: The short form is "It's all good," which I personally find a detestable copout that is neither reassuring nor comforting to someone in a difficult situation.

I don't quite understand your logic here.

I'm saying that that catchphrase is basically the same as "God had a purpose," in short, it's people's excuse for that which makes no sense if they truly thought about it and left off simply accepting and repeating what they've been carefully conditioned to believe as matters of faith. 

Oh, and you haven't been "carefully conditioned"?  

In the above God had a purpose.  In the here and now when a child is born blind it is a result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.  Ever since that day in the garden entropy is a fact concerning DNA.  Harmful mutations occur to our DNA and one of the results is blindness.

Oh, please! You honestly believe that DNA mutations and birth defects result from our still being punished for that long ago disobedience??? Incredible!

57:Sure. Why not?

I don't see how anyone claiming to be a Christian can possibly hang onto that old saw as reason for such things when Christ supposedly came as the sacrifice to eliminate the debt incurred by Adam and Eve's disobedience.

Are you saying Christ didn't come and was nailed to a cross and died  as a sacrifice to eliminate the debt incurred by Adam and Eve's disobedience....as well as your sin?

Oh, but I forget that a baby might well be born blind because s/he isn't intellectually mature enough to choose to be saved yet.

HUH?

All the more nonsensical and ridiculous, IMO. And nevermind that most Christian sects which hold to the dogma of the necessity of being saved exempt immature children as innocents who are protected by the sacrifice of Jesus.

I suppose you never heard of the predestination of the elect?

Imagine the JOY the blind man had when he could see.  You seem to take that joy away.  perhaps I'm wrong about you but that;s how I see it. 

The joy felt by the blind man when he could see is beside the point entirely. You don't seem to realize that. The only part relevant to a discussion of reincarnation is why it is that people would ask Jesus those questions unless there was some belief in reincarnation current at that time in that place.

As I said above...they thought that a persons sin or their parents sins could cause the blindness....reincarnation isn't the only game in town. 

For example:

Deuteronomy 5:9 says:

‘You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,  visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

I trust you stand corrected. 

Dot quoted:  Now, on the other hand (which may seem equally dete

stable and nonsensical to you), I find it reasonable that the entity which became this man born blind chose that condition before birth so as to work off some karma incurred by hurtful or harmful deeds in a past life.

57:  I see a problem here.  I'm a grace kinda guy.  As humans we can't "work" off our sins.  Thankfully we have a God that is full of grace and mercy.  Thank God we have a forgiving God.  

If we had to work off our sins in a million +  lives we could never do it.

A series of beliefs quite contrary to mine. To each hir own, and ours are in the camp of "Never the twain shall meet." Probably pointless to attempt to continue discussing this.  

Exactly...that's why you should not quote from the bible. 

Dot quoted: Knowing that it would be difficult but wishing more rapid spiritual progress by choosing a challenging life is a noble acceptance of responsibility for one's actions past and present, IMO.

There is nothing more noble that the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross for our sins.  As I said, in a million + lives we can't be good enough.  That is why we need the grace and mercy of God our creator.  The GREAT thing about it is that it's FREE!!!!  Realize you sin (create bad karma) ...and accept the atoning work of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...the King of kings ... when He died on the cross for YOU!!!

Well, if all that brings you comfort, that's fine by me. It ultimately didn't once I began studying the Bible and its origins, and "creating bad karma" is not the entirely the same as sinning, but explaining why would take far too long.

You're slipping into exhorting me to accept your beliefs, which borders upon a Rules of Conduct violation. Kindly stop this and proceed no further with it.

I kinda think you are the one proselytizing me.  You present half verses as truth, scripture twist...and expect me to believe you. 

 

 

Mar 24, 2011 -- 11:48AM, Nay_ho_tze wrote:

57 writes: I kinda think you are the one proselytizing me.
As host, I'm compelled to point out
that you attempted limited restrictions on Dot
when you wrote "Exactly...that's why you should not quote from the bible."

Anyone is free to quote from any source in this forum -
it is a multi-faith forum -
and as such, it is understood that sources are equally respected here -
The Bible, the Vedas, the Qu'ran, and any other holy scriptures...
all of them are welcome here
and, more importantly, none has more weight than another -

If you can grasp that concept, Christian friend,
then your thoughts are welcome here -

57 writes: ...the reincarnist (is that a word?)
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ist?...
third definition...under 'noun'
yes, it's a word.

NHT
host

-------------------------------------------
*impish grin @ Dot*
'nice to see you in such good form, girlfriend!

You seemed to have missed the point. 

If and when you quote from the bible  you should at least use the whole verse and not just half of it....especially...when the second half  negates your opinion.

That should go for any literature. 

Mar 24, 2011 -- 12:49PM, Nay_ho_tze wrote:

Sir - Your misguided point seems to be
that resources be quoted only in full sentences...
There is no rule anywhere that states
a resource must be quoted in complete sentences.

It is shameful when someone present half a verse...passing it off as truth all the while knowing you have created deception from it.  

In punctuation, that's what the three dots ( ... ) are for -
to show where something is missing from a given quote.
They are used to indicate to the reader
that there's more to the given quote,
if they want to check into it ...

I use to have somewhat of a belief in reincarnation.  I then followed the dots...  Now I have absolutely no belief in reincarnation.  

Where the scripture twisters misrepresented the Word of God stood out like a sore thumb.  

However, in multi-faith forums,
it becomes tedious to keep typing three dots -
impedes the flow of thoughts,
so the practice tends to slide ...

As biblically well-versed as you are,
I'm sure you can supply where they ought to be ...

Here's the problem.  The site that misrepresented biblical text lost all credibility.  If they were wrong about the biblical text.....where else have they twisted words to reflect the views of reincarnation?  

That's why I said to stop quoting the bible.  The error is so obvious for those that actually check it out...follow the dots.... it doesn't help your cause.  IMHO

NHT
host