Adam

Reincarnation is not incompatible with atheism. Many Buddhists are thought of as atheists. It could explain ever so much of what is ordinarily ascribed to God. But this type of atheist apparently has no presence on this board, or at least this line of thought from a theist cannot be entertained here.

Horatio Parker

There are Christian athists as well:

It's very intellectual Nietzschean type stuff. Sometime I intend to get around reading about it. J. J. Altizer is one of the CA gurus.

I've never been a big fan of Nietzsche, but many people whom I respect are and so taking another look is also on my to-do list.

Speaking generally this forum tends to history as opposed to theology. And there's even less interest in a traditional, literalist Jesus-as-supernatural-God being on earth theology.

steve_bnk

'...Reincarnation is not incompatible with atheism..'

Neither are alien crop circles, ghosts, UFOs, alien abductions, bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

Adam

Extending through my current conclusions from philosophy, theology, and Bible Criticism, below I conclude my Post #19 that set itself as the extension of my Gospel Eyewitnesses thesis that we can learn much from revelation from critical study of the canonical gospels, particularly the parts from the written sources by the eyewitnesses of Jesus. "l" was already in my blog here in FRDB, and the rest is still pending posting there because I don't know how to get it out of "uncategorized" there or how multiple blogs are supposed to work. (I look upon reincarnation as the rational expression of true skepticism, as was typical of the Renaissance.)

l. Putting aside for brevity further evidence for the authority of Jesus, consider that Jesus also supports the above presentation by His closing teaching about the new form of worship that would soon be coming. Satan’s rule over this world would be suspended (John 12:31, 16:11). Observation of the last 2000 years reveals, however, that this condemnation of Satan would not be very apparent, and must be cross-referenced with John 4:20-24. The obvious change would be that true worship of the Father would be in spirit and truth. Presumably this would mean the soon-to-come Christian Charismatic worship which became formalized as the Christian liturgy, most commonly called the Mass. Charismatic worship was reinstituted in the 20th century, and the most pure form of the liturgy was restored after Vatican II and in the 1979 Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer. I call Christian worship the Apocalyptic Hour. This has been the biggest change since Satan’s power was diminished.

m. Those formative years of Christianity in the early centuries continued the belief in Preexistence and perhaps Reincarnation. By the 6th Century a drier orthodoxy drove out some of the true teachings of the early Christianity. However, some Christian reincarnationism continues, and it’s hard to see how the orthodox tend to deny Preexistence as well. In the main Christian denomination, however, the Roman Catholic teaching on Purgatory can be modified to refer to Reincarnation. Simply take a middle position between RC and Protestant positions that eliminate or minimize the transformation in Purgatory as against the Traditionalists who stand by the long time periods corresponding to prayers for the dead. Stick with the time periods defined by many years, just add in future earthly lives as where they may be spent.

n. Among Jews Reincarnation is standard among the main current group, the Hasidic (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews. Reincarnation remains taught among many Moslems as well, particularly among the Sufis and Shi’a. Apart from the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and Moslems), Reincarnation has developed independently based on scholarly studies and past-life regression. Information can easily be found on websites from Google under “Reincarnation” and “Reincarnation Proof”.

o. Modern philosophy can be argued to best reinforce Reincarnation. Descartes’ starting point, “I think, therefore I am” has been criticized down to nearly Solipsism, but remains as one principle that cannot be doubted. Simply extend this to doubting our doubts, and we can make some progress. (See paragraph one above, for example). Let us doubt that we cannot know of an earlier instant in time, and then consider how far back we can push that knowledge of a prior time. And how are we able to know even what we know now? Didn’t our capability imply a knowing or capable-of-knowing entity, going who knows how far back?

p. Does Descartes’ maxim become, “I thought, therefore I was?” I think not (to hazard a pun). That gives us nothing about even what is true right now. But doesn’t it tell us something if we say, “I think, therefore I was”? Your continuing to think right now still leaves us connected to the past instances in which you knew you were. That carries you back to when you were first aware of thinking. Next, carry it back to before you were conscious of thinking. The “I think, therefore I was” still applies. Then go back before you were capable of thinking. We understand that there was a long process of neurological development that followed a pattern dictated by one’s genetic code. But the genetic code only determines our physical development. It does not determine our thinking process itself nor that we are aware of ourselves as being ourselves. Or so it would be argued by Deconstructionism. We cannot just accept our preconceptions as true. That we can think is truly remarkable. That we can think now implies that we could think beforehand as well. Economy of cause and effect argues that we could think even before our current bodies. Before we were what we are we were something that was not very different from what we are now. By a radical skepticism about something just arising from nothing, we reach the principle for a new philosophy. “I am, therefore I was” implying that reincarnation is true. In turn this limits us to considering as possibly true only philosophies that are reconcilable with reincarnation.

q. Refer back to opening paragraph of Post #19.