Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by sonship

Dude, yet again I am compelled to tell you that reincarnation is the journey of 'the same soul.'

Do you recall ANYTHING about your previous incarnation ?
How about two or three incarnations back ?

Remember ANYTHING ?

[quote]
You are not a new soul every time you are reincarnated. (Karma would indeed been nonsen ...[text shortened]... to adverse reincarnational consequences from your previous life ?

Name a couple of things.

Well, to begin with sir, I don't believe in reincarnation. This was never about me personally dealing with or explaining about consequences from a previous incarnation. This was simply a correction of your own interpretation of reincarnation, which is incorrect. - It's fine for you to reject the idea of reincarnation (as I have done myself) but you at least need to get right the thing you are rejecting. It's like a Hindu rejecting Jesus purely on the misunderstanding that he wanted to turn everybody into carpenters.

Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth until the same soul achieves enlightenment and finally escapes this endless cycle.

As for how we are 'benefiting today from good or bad performed in a previous incarnation' I have already provided examples last time we discussed this. - One such example being of a hate filled racist/white supremacist who goes on to be reborn as a black man. This new incarnation may provide new insight and give the opportunity for the soul to grow and develop and as a consequence move a step closer towards enlightenment. This black man doesn't need to have memory of his previous incarnation as a white supremacist to grow as a person.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

Well, to begin with sir, I don't believe in reincarnation.

Okay. I don't either.

This was never about me personally dealing with or explaining about consequences from a previous incarnation.

Ask anybody ELSE. Ask someone who DOES believe in reincarnation.

This was simply a correction of your own interpretation of reincarnation, which is incorrect. - It's fine for you to reject the idea of reincarnation (as I have done myself) but you at least need to get right the thing you are rejecting.

Well, you see, the SOUL is the SELF. And though we may talk about the traveling of the SOUL or the transmigration of the SOUL, what I am saying is that the SELF is GONE. A NEW SELF is in the next incarnation (supposedly).

I read Siddhartha by Herman Hess. The final scene of the book was touching. He say his friends face change over and over again from fish to flower to whatever. It was implied that his friends soul had transmigrated though thousands of reincarnations.

Though it was a moving scene to the concept, I think what WAS passing through these alleged other forms of life was really not his friends SELF, his SOUL.

Think about it now. The FISH had his SOUL. The ox had HIS SOUL. The bird has HIS SOUL, so on and so forth even to the lotus flower of whatever. I cannot remember in detail all the life forms that he saw of the man's face.

Since this transmigration is successive souls it is successive SELVES. Who is aware of reward? WHAT is aware of reward ? Personhood is being obliterated and replaced.

If you argue that SOMETHING is being progressively benefited or disciplined it is not human.

It's like a Hindu rejecting Jesus purely on the misunderstanding that he wanted to turn everybody into carpenters.

That leap alludes me at the moment.

Reincarnation is a cycle of rebirth until the same soul achieves enlightenment and finally escapes this endless cycle.

If John Doe passes through 78,000 reincarnations to be released into Nirvana, what is released into Nirvana is not human and certainly is no longer John Doe.

I cannot see what the incentive should be to obtain this release then.
Whatever is released is not human. It and Joe Doe couldn't care less about each other, IF the entity achieving Nirvana is a CARING thing at all.

As for how we are 'benefiting today from good or bad performed in a previous incarnation' I have already provided examples last time we discussed this. - One such example being of a hate filled racist/white supremacist who goes on to be reborn as a black man.

LOL !

How come being reborn as another racist white dude is not punishment ?

And if the new dude is black, he has no feeling of "Awe SHUCKS, Just what I HATED is what I have become."

The white SELF is gone. The black SELF is here.
Now someone may be unhappy with what he is by birth.
But I don't think he has any feeling of it being recompense for anything.

This new incarnation may provide new insight and give the opportunity for the soul to grow and develop and as a consequence move a step closer towards enlightenment. This black man doesn't need to have memory of his previous incarnation as a white supremacist to grow as a person.

I see. I have no feeling to look for holes in this belief. You do not see me interfering here with people submitting other beliefs.

I usually only comment if my Christian faith is questioned or critiqued in a way I feel to respond.

If someone comes here preaching Hinduism, you will probably not see me trying to interfere. I talk about Jesus Christ.

You have every right to proclaim Hinduism on a Spirituality Forum.
Now comparison, I am ready to discuss if some are interested.

And to this concept of a cleansing through reincarnation I would say, cleansing through the redemption of Christ's work on Calvary is better. And transformation pertains to one SELF - one SOUL.

" And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:2)

The Gospel teaches not reincarnation but transformation. That is from one degree of expressing Christ likeness to another, to another, degree by degree until we are conformed into the same image.

Also Nirvana is very lonely and individualistic it seems.
God's salvation is wonderfully corporate and concludes in a collective holy city of love toward God and toward one another forever.

Nirvana is just some kind of released vibration, inhuman, leaving YOU well behind, obliterated, non-existent. What you are replaced with is a Void of "happy" nothingness.

But it is the aspiration of many.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So can some societies view about what constitutes 'Justice' be wrong?

Can others be wrong in my opinion? Of course. You can think my view is wrong, and I yours. People within a society can disagree about what justice and injustice are. Rulers can disagree with each other and the ruled can disagree with their rulers. Countries can disagree with each other. Views can change over time.

So, what about the question that you still haven't answered. What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Originally posted by FMF
Can others be wrong in my opinion? Of course. You can think my view is wrong, and I yours. People within a society can disagree about what justice and injustice are. Rulers can disagree with each other and the ruled can disagree with their rulers. Countries can disagree with each other. Views can change over time.

So, what about the question that you still h ...[text shortened]... following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Can others be wrong in my opinion? Of course.

Why can they be wrong? Because their opinion of Justice differs from yours? You may think they are wrong but unless you have an unchanging point of reference then your view is just as relative as theirs.

You can think my view is wrong, and I yours.

I can only think your view is wrong if I have an unchanging point of reference. What is your unchanging point of reference?

People within a society can disagree about what justice and injustice are. Rulers can disagree with each other and the ruled can disagree with their rulers. Countries can disagree with each other. Views can change over time.

But unless they have an unchanging reference point, how can they be sure that their view is the right one?

So, what about the question that you still haven't answered. What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

If your definition of "justice" is "a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society", then there is no right or wrong answer to your question. So what is the point of asking it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

FMF: So, what about the question that you still haven't answered. What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Fetchmyjunk: If your definition of "justice" is "a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society", then there is no right or wrong answer to your question. So what is the point of asking it?

I am asking you what your supposed "unchanging reference point" tells you about what constitutes "justice" [that you think is "real"] for each of the following described earlier on this thread: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist. That is the point of me asking.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I can only think your view is wrong if I have an unchanging point of reference. What is your unchanging point of reference?

People don't have to have "unchanging points of reference" in order to have (and express) opinions and disagree about things. Christians around the world, for example, disagree sharply about what constitutes "justice" and "injustice". They make diametrically opposite decisions concerning their views on "justice"; so much for a supposed "unchanging point of reference" that makes "sure that their view is the right one".

Originally posted by FMF
FMF: So, what about the question that you still haven't answered. What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Fetchmyjunk: [b]If your definition of "justice" is "a social construct and is something perceived and perhaps debated by members of a society", t ...[text shortened]... 2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist. That is the point of me asking.

James 4:12 "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbour?"

Originally posted by FMF
People don't have to have "unchanging points of reference" in order to have (and express) opinions and disagree about things. Christians around the world, for example, disagree sharply about what constitutes "justice" and "injustice". They make diametrically opposite decisions concerning their views on "justice"; so much for a supposed "unchanging point of reference" that makes "sure that their view is the right one".

The concept of real justice only makes sense if God is in the picture. If God is not in the picture, all you have are relative views, no one's view is ultimately "right" or "wrong".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
James 4:12 "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbour?"

So you don't even know - or can't bring yourself to say - what this so called "real justice" you and sonship are touting actually is? That seems strange. You don't know what it is, but it's certainly "perfect", whatever it is... is that how it works?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The concept of real justice only makes sense if God is in the picture. If God is not in the picture, all you have are relative views, no one's view is ultimately "right" or "wrong".

So what is your 'non-relative' view - that "makes sense" - with "God in the picture" - on the fate of [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist?

Originally posted by FMF
So what is your 'non-relative' view - that "makes sense" - with "God in the picture" - on the fate of [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist?

My 'non-relative' view - that "makes sense" to me is that God will judge people, and that I am in no position to judge anyone.

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't even know - or can't bring yourself to say - what this so called "real justice" you and sonship are touting actually is? That seems strange. You don't know what it is, but it's certainly "perfect", whatever it is... is that how it works?

It's actually very simple, God judges people. That is 'real justice'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
My 'non-relative' view - that "makes sense" to me is that God will judge people, and that I am in no position to judge anyone.

So the substance of what you see as being "real justice" is secret, is that what you mean? Or unknowable? What lesson can humanity learn from this paradigm of supposedly "real justice" and apply to its own application of justice?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It's actually very simple, God judges people. That is 'real justice'.

This is simply an assertion. Let us evaluate whether it is either "real" or "perfect" by seeing what it is. Oh but wait. It's justice carried out in secret. So we simply have the assertions of people like yourself that it's "real" and "perfect". There is no substance or example for us to examine and learn from. How is this anything other than a purely subjective and rather arbitrary view of "justice"?

Originally posted by FMF
So the substance of what you see as being "real justice" is secret, is that what you mean? Or unknowable? What lesson can humanity learn from this paradigm of supposedly "real justice" and apply to its own application of justice?

So in your mind, the theory that God will judge people in the afterlife according to his 'perfect justice' is "secret" or "unknowable"?