If the purpose of karma is to rid humanity of its selfish desires, then why has there not been a noticeable improvement in human nature after all the millennia of reincarnations on earth?

If reincarnation and the law of karma are so beneficial on a practical level, how do we explain the immense and ever-worsening social and economic problems - widespread poverty, starvation, disease, and horrible suffering - in India, where reincarnation has been systematically taught throughout its history?

The answer to these questions is very simple: under the law of Karma, you reap what you sow - thus the minute humanity sows evil, we reap evil - and this is a process that can continue ad infinitum.

Let me give you some insight: remember what Jesus said about casting out demons. He indicated that if the victim still bears within him fertile soil for demon posession, TEN MORE demons would return to posess the victim. This is actually a process of magnetism - evil attracts more evil - accordingly human evil excesses only lead to greater evil under the law of Karma and magnetism - thus the cycle of continuing evil, CAPISCE?

Let me add a little to that:

Remember another of the words of Jesus: He said - "To him who has, more will be given - but to him who does not have, even the little that he has will be taken away from him."

At first glance this looks very harsh indeed.

On closer inspection we see that Jesus is mediating the law of Karma again.

Each human spirit is a spiritual magnet. When a human spirit dwells within evil thoughts, he naturally attracts evil spiritual vibrations to himself. The more the evil he attracts to himself, the stronger his evil magnetism becomes. Ditto for a person who dwells within pure thoughts - he attracts spiritual purity to himself. Now the more purity he attracts, the stronger his magnet becomes for pure things. Thus the more he has, the more he continues to get.

However when your magnet is weak, you are not able to attract much to yourself. Thus stronger magnets around you will by the strength of their magnetism attract away from you the little mass that you have. Thus the less you have, even more will be taken from you!

It is nothing but a law of spiritual magnetism which simply could not be otherwise.

This i hope addittionally explains why humanity is not doing well spiritually.

Deep Sight:

The answer to these questions is very simple: under the law of Karma, you reap what you sow - thus the minute humanity sows evil, we reap evil - and this is a process that can continue ad infinitum.

Let me give you some insight: remember what Jesus said about casting out demons. He indicated that if the victim still bears within him fertile soil for demon posession, TEN MORE demons would return to posess the victim. This is actually a process of magnetism - evil attracts more evil - accordingly human evil excesses only lead to greater evil under the law of Karma and magnetism - thus the cycle of continuing evil, CAPISCE?

@Deep Sight: I assume you refer to SEVEN demons, and to this scripture, sir

Mat 12:43  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
Mat 12:44  Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
Mat 12:45  Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

And if you are (because there is no other such place I can think of right now), then it means that it doesn't quite apply in favor of your case, where you are likening it to the multiplication of evil due to evil actions.

The demon leaves the man, and then makes an attempt to return. when it gets back, it meets the place UNOCCUPIED. NOT a fertile soil for possession, but NOT INHABITED! Even if was a demon that was there, the other demon would not be able to displace it

Mat 12:26  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So the point is not that the guy was involved in MORE evil, but rather the guy was non-commitally sitting on the fence [s]probably waiting for his next reincarnation when things would work out easier for him?[/s]

The problem Jesus was addressing there was the non-chalance of the Scribes and Pharisees, those ones that refused to listen to or accept the Gospel, but were still waiting for another miracle (a military miracle of sorts). Jesus Christ was going to die for their sins, but things would get worse for them because the CLEAN SLATE THEY HAD FROM CHRIST WAS GOING TO GET MORE PUTRIFIED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT SPIRITUAL ESSENCE TO STORE IN THEIR SPIRITS.

@Mavenb0x,

You have tried - and again added even some more interesting points. I can understand why DeepSight is deeply committed to force reincarnation into the Bible where those verses clearly do not teach his assumptions. It's quite a laugh watching him at his best efforts and yet going nowhere.

Mavenb0x:

@viaro: LOL I loooove cola too! It really does it for me. I'm in Nigeria and it's 1:40am. If I dont leave NL now I will sleep in late, and its church in the morning! Goodnight, brother.

P.S. I will return maybe in 24 hours and see where the discussion has gone North, East or South (I am doubting the west-side, it has been shown that people don't re-incarnate there otherwise we would have another Tupac spitting the rhymes like tomorrow has not yet been born)

I like that. I logged out as soon as I was done with Malbron in the wee hours of this morning, and glad to see he stayed up to sweat it through the night. The discussion didn't go east though. . . lol, because more than not, them boys from that zone don't care two scoobies about who's reincarnating into who!

Mavenb0x:

Marlbron, I would advise you not to debate quantum physics & multiverses with viaro, unless you know your onions! But if u insist, pls take it to another thread!!

Honestly, I was disappointed he didn't even try, apart from just grumbling. I was just waiting for him to do so - it would've been absolute fun!

nuclearboy:

@Chairman Viaro:

You and Maven should keep reminding me to agree with you everytime (until I have your babes' number ). Sadly, no one can have anything on a woman so I'm stuck in her case. Anyway 50% is better than 0% and you are more vitriolic

Hehehe, commander. . I should have been smarter than that and not divulged that much. Now you have the noose around my neck and don't seem to ease up. Ouch! I should look for another way to escape your stranglehold so we can debate with more bromide!

Mavenb0x:

@Deep Sight: I assume you refer to SEVEN demons, and to this scripture, sir

And if you are (because there is no other such place I can think of right now), then it means that it doesn't quite apply in favor of your case, where you are likening it to the multiplication of evil due to evil actions.

The demon leaves the man, and then makes an attempt to return. when it gets back, it meets the place UNOCCUPIED. NOT a fertile soil for possession, but NOT INHABITED! Even if was a demon that was there, the other demon would not be able to displace it

Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So the point is not that the guy was involved in MORE evil, but rather the guy was non-commitally sitting on the fence [s]probably waiting for his next reincarnation when things would work out easier for him?[/s]

The problem Jesus was addressing there was the non-chalance of the Scribes and Pharisees, those ones that refused to listen to or accept the Gospel, but were still waiting for another miracle (a military miracle of sorts). Jesus Christ was going to die for their sins, but things would get worse for them because the CLEAN SLATE THEY HAD FROM CHRIST WAS GOING TO GET MORE PUTRIFIED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT SPIRITUAL ESSENCE TO STORE IN THEIR SPIRITS.

Yes 7 dremons, pardon me.

Now do you not see that an empty place approximates to a weak magnet - or no magnet! Thus a fertile soil for posession - when nothing is there, the empty space can be posessed very easily. Stop fiddling with semantics Maven.

DeepSight is deeply committed to force reincarnation into the Bible where those verses clearly do not teach his assumptions.

Be silent, joker!

I have shown extensively that YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING AGAINST THE WORDS OF YOUR GOD, THE CARPENTER OF NAZARETH.

In this i stand on the side of his clear words - It is YOU that is trying to corrupt the clear words to suit your dogma.

I already showed how silly your excuses for stating that his words are symbolic are - did you not read it? I take it you are busy educating yourself on the meaning of the word "conditional" - that would be a wise venture because your use of it earlier was starkly embarassing.

@Malbron, hope you had a good Sunday so far? Thanks for your replies - good points you raised, but I already addressed your recent objections in the body of my previous posts in this thread. So excuse my dealing with just the few points that may need reiteration.

Marlbron:
It looks like you are  confused about the Transfiguration event? Well it was a vision that was revealed unto them.

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Elijah did not physically meet with them. How could they have known Elijah? Were they born in his days or did they have his picture? It was a spiritual revelation.

1. Viaro is not confused about the meaning of Biblical visions, nor is the vision in Matthew 17 the only type of visions in the entire Bible. God uses various distinct types of this experience (such as prophecies, visions and similitudes - Hos. 12:10) to reveal certain things to whomsoever He chooses. That the vision in the Transfiguration was a 'revelation' unto the three apostles on that mount does not mean that it was akin to a 'dream' so that everyone there was as confused as you're implying. It was a vivid reality they experienced.

2. That the vision was a real event to those who witnessed it is obvious for two reasons:

[list](a) Peter recounts that same event as a real-life occurence in 2 Peter 1:16-18 in saying that they were "eyewitnesses of His majesty". You hardly use the word 'eyewitness' for something that is merely surreal or a dream - please go through the NT and see the fact for yourself. In his epistle, Peter recounts the events as a vivid experience where they heard the voice from heaven as well other things that occured on that mount. If you are making out that it was only a 'vision' and therefore could not be taken for its reality, my dear friend, it would mean that the voice from heaven as well was a 'dream' and not real! Peter, however, does not play down its reality in his epistle.[/list]

[list](b) The reality of the vision does not in any way negate the fact of their recognizing and identifying the specific personages that appeared to them - Moses and Elijah. Your objection of 'how could they have known Elijah?' is a non-starter, in so far as they recognized and named the very persons that they saw in that event. In other vivid visions where people have appeared to others, the identities of the personages were not misconstrued either - even before the actual meeting between the parties involved (e.g., Acts 9:10-12 & 17-18).[/list]

You can't use these objections to argue your reincarnation into the Bible, bro. You perhaps might have done better by providing verses that point directly to 'reincarnation' in the Bible. At least, we have shown numerous verses again and again specifically pointing to resurrection, but you seem to ever be circling around nowhere furtively seeking every excuse under the sun to dribble in your reincarnation. It does not help much, does it?

Deep Sight:

Be silent, joker!

I have shown extensively that YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING AGAINST THE WORDS OF YOUR GOD, THE CARPENTER OF NAZARETH.

In this i stand on the side of his clear words - It is YOU that is trying to corrupt the clear words to suit your dogma.

I already showed how silly your excuses for stating that his words are symbolic are - did you not read it? I take it you are busy educating yourself on the meaning of the word "conditional" - that would be a wise venture because your use of it earlier was starkly embarassing.

Is something the matter, or you failed to take your medications?

Why don't you wait patiently and let me post my replies before reacting? Whether or not I am the one arguing against the Word of God will be manifest when I show what I have shown and ask YOU to stand up to defend your own reincarnation program. Whether you die and reincarnate into a lizard tonight after that, we shall see.

Still there yapping on and profusley trying to deny the words of your God - Jesus the Carpenter?

What's your problem - can you not see the ridiculous extent you and maven have gone to weaving farcical analogies around Jesus' clear words - which even nursery school babies would understand?

The most farcical being your use of the word "if" and saying it was conditional.

I laugh.

Gudnite carpenter worshipper.

@Malbron, let me continue before I was slightly amused by DeepSight's restlessness.

Marlbron:

The cycle you mentioned is in order. I hope you realise that judgement takes place mainly on earth as was the case with John the Baptist?

Nope, the 'judgement' of which we speak - the Great White Throne - does not take place on earth (see Rev. 20:11-12). There are several divine judgements that would be poured out upon the earth (Rev. 8:5-11); but that is quite different from what you are describing, known as karma. . . and in this case, neither Elijah nor John the Baptist was undergoing any karma of any type for which you were arguing.

How will the judgement happen if there is no reincarnation on earth?

Because the prophets declared a resurrection rather than a reincarnation - the fact you acknowledged earlier in post #43, to which I replied affirmatively by quoting Daniel 12:2 - "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." There are other verses where this sequence holds, that judgement follows resurrection.

I guess  this is a bit too much for you to comprehend but I fully understand your opinions.

Nope, this is not too much for me to comprehend - which is why I often leave you clear verses to buttress what I state, rather than follow your own frantic exercises of making drama scripts floating in the air that you won't find anywhere in the Bible.


Now, on to your foozling about the 'multiverse' -

If the earth is not the centre of the multiverse, why the interest from God? Why did Christ not die in Mars or Jupiter? Do you not know that life exist in another dimension in these planets? Do you think God created them for fun?

(1) First, you don't know what a multiverse is, so just zip it, okay? Aside the fact that it is hypothetical as yet, the Earth is not the center of the Universe, let alone the center of the multiverse. Even if you meant 'multiverse' in the sense of religious cosmology, it still would not make the earth the center of the Universe.

(2) God's interests on humanity and the Earth does not suggest that we are the most significant topic in His economy concerning the Universe. First off, there are things not revealed to man (Deut. 29:29); and second, man recognizes that he is just a puny speck in all of God's creation (Psa. 8:3-5; Job 7:17; Psa. 144:3-4). Yes, we are a 'small' but not 'trivial' aspect of His Universe; but for all of that God's interest in us is quite evident.

(3)  Who is on Mars or Jupiter that your own 'christ' would go and die there - who is your 'christ' trying to redeem there? Be very careful when you yap wryly because you might not like what you would read as replies.

(4)  Please tell us the type of 'life' that you have established as existing in 'another dimension in these planets' - don't just yap it, show us with substance. I know God did not create the Universe and the planets for fun, but it seems you're running desperate to 'prove' your reincarnation thesis that you can't even stand steady to focus on the topic anymore. My sympathies.

Again you quote scripture with little understanding. Your quotes of Eccliastis does not and should not have been used to support your argument. It shows your level of understanding of  a simple scripture. The dead refferred to there is the physical body not the spirit. The physical body is forgotten but the spirit lives on forever.

I am very aware that the soul and spirit of man survives the death of the body; but perhaps you did not read the references I cited carefully - they do not support your thesis of reincarnation - NOT ONE BIT. Those references just simply waste your argument about any 'spirit' roaming the earth to do any assignment! I would have been more than delighted to see one verse where your argument would be established rather than complaining against mine and yet showing absolute zilch for yours!

Please what does everlasting life mean to you? Lets see your understanding. At least I offered mine, which supports re-incarnation.

My understanding of everlasting life does not mean reincarnation - I made that point clear, that if your own understanding means a cycle of rebirths and deaths 'ad infinitum', then you have quite simply destroyed your reincarnation without my help.

Deep Sight:

Still there yapping on and profusley trying to deny the words of your God - Jesus the Carpenter?

What's your problem - can you not see the ridiculous extent you and maven have gone to weaving farcical analogies around Jesus' clear words - which even nursery school babies would understand?

The most farcical being your use of the word "if" and saying it was conditional.

My rejoinders are not directed at Maven - it is rather YOU DeepSight that viaro is whipping - so what is the matter with all these sobbing from you??

I laugh.

Gudnite carpenter worshipper.

[size=14pt]Huh??[/size]

Now I can see you can't wait to receive further whips - you have your backs peeled that much you are begging already and taking off!!

You, DeepSight, are a comic relief - you only confirm repeatedly that you are a very, very LAZY thinker! But go and sleep - whenever you wake up (and be sure to take your meds), then we shall discuss further (or shall I say, I shall whip you mercilessly when you return).

@DeepSight:

Well I am not using or explaining "IFs". But you've gone out of your way to avoid replying me.

I stated earlier that your theory of Re-incarnation seems based on "interpreting" scriptures! But consider the examples which are explicitly stated and do NOT REQUIRE INTERPRETATION -

[1] Abraham, Lazarus and the rich guy. How does them been on another side of eternity help or stand against your case for re-incarnation seeing as re-incarnation does not support multiple simultaneous existence. If they are OR can be there for as long as Abraham would have been, they cannot be here too. Would you then say those three were "exempted'?
[2] The fact that Elijah DID NOT DIE seems to make the case of him literally being the Baptist fall to the ground. Your definition of re-incarnation REQUIRES DEATH before the fact of re-incarnation. Could you PLEASE AVOID GRAMMAR and show me where Elijah died for him to re-incarnate as John? If he didn't die, its obvious then that your interpretation of what our "God" says is wrong.
[3] The statement "Tonight, you'll be with me in Paradise"! If the thief would be in Paradise, how then would he re-incarnate i.e. what portion of him would be left to come back?
[4] The statement in Hebrews which you'd rather not consider remains a part of the Bible. Would you rather we re-write the scriptures to suit you?

None of these requires any extensive scholarship as I wrote earlier. Enough of all this evasiveness into long winded theses! This must be the 4th I'm asking you to Biblically refute the above. I await your pleasure

nuclearboy:

None of these requires any extensive scholarship as I wrote earlier. Enough of all this evasiveness into long winded theses! This must be the 4th I'm asking you to Biblically refute the above. I await your pleasure

Forget DeepSight - he's become more of deep entertainment than anything pointing to 'scholarship'.

DeepSight, now onto yours. Of course, you only turned round to repeat yourself on what I have already addressed; but it seems you just like me to repeat myself on the same points, and I shall oblige you warmly.

Deep Sight:

It is rather irritating to see Christians dancing around and making a circus of what their own bible states in very clear terms.

I have oft noted that there is a pattern you will often see in most Christian arguments –

If the Bible says –

X means “Stone” –

- And the Christian agrees with it, he will tell you that the text is clear and thus X really means stone.

But when the Bible says X means “Stone” –

- And the Christian does not agree with it, he will tell you that it is merely symbolic and that X does not really mean stone.

This is not to say that there are not symbols in the bible – it is however utterly laughable the way in which the Christian deploys such defences. Especially because the Christian is always readily willing to dismiss even the words of Jesus Christ, whom he calls God, in favour of that which he himself prefers.

The above is a classic complaint of cultists - although I wished very much not to address you as such. The whole thing is very simple: if Christ taught reincarnation, we most definitely would have found such a teaching in the Bible. Rather, we find everywhere that He taught RESURRECTION - and the verses pointing to that fact are multiplied throughout both the OT and NT! How come you guys are never able to point to just ONE verse in the entire Bible mentioning reincarnation?? How come not one of you reincarnation gurus are able to find a verse explicitly teaching such a non-sequitor??

The thing I find very comical in all this is that, when all your ammunitions for your reincarnation thesis collapses, you desperately seek muddled logic to infer what you can't sustain, and then end up complaining about Christians on topics that are unrelated to the present! If you want to save face, just say so and nobody would arrest you on that; but to keep making excuses and tripping all over yourself is rather hilarious.

Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)
Now I must be harsh on this. It is either Viaro is plain silly or, regardless of his considerable vocabulary, he still has difficulties with plain English Grammar.

He abuses the word “if” with such puerile density that it becomes glaring that he has in fact seen the truth and is looking for farcical escape routes from it.

There is NO context in which the word “if” can be applied to suggest that the words of Christ in that sentence were not real or true save one – which leads to absurdity.

Harsh? Look, you're yapping emptily by recycling the same absolute bunk on Matthew 17. I have dealt extensively on this same rubbish of yours and if you want me to just repeat the post, I gladly would oblige! What I would have hoped you would do is be brave enough to take every single point I set out on that same issue and deal accordingly - for that is what I often do: take your every objection and waste them in such a way that there would be no room for you to squeal! But no, I don't see you even attempting to discuss those points, so let's just repeat my answers to you on those same points:

[list]I have dealt rather extensively with the FACT that Jesus did not take Malachi's prophecy of Elijah's reappearance as a literal case for John the Baptist - see post #6, this thread. There are solid reasons for that FACT of Jesus' non-literal statement in Matthew 11:14:

[list](a) His conditional 'IF' in that statement;
(b) The deixis of Biblical prophecies;
(c)  Malachi's double reference - Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 - for 'Elijah';
(d) John the Baptist's own solid answer in John 1:21 - "Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not";
(e) The angel Gabriel's pronouncements in Luke 1:17 - "he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias";
(f)  Then in post #15 I went on to give an example of the deixis of Biblical prophecy as to a personage of the past who would reappear in the future, using David as a clear and oft-referenced example by many prophets, to the point of resurrection, and not reincarnation.[/list]

You just skipped these points, discussed nothing, and then make up your mind that these are all 'speculation'? Please go one step beyond that lazy quip and just show that these five points were flawed and then argue them for reincarnation. I wanted to leave you absolutely no room at all to quibble on these issues, and it is not enough to just excuse them brashly - or I may have no other alternative than conclude you're once again evading these solid points so that you can conveniently dribble in your reincarnation thesis.[/list]

There - I expected you to deal on those points with substance, not the one-liner excuses you made later on in other to recycle reincarnation program. Serious thinkers examine the objections and points of other discussants, but not you - you rather tried to pamper yourself by excusing them with 'meaningless'. .  'outright deceitful'. . .'dense', etc - nothing said other than your usual prevarications.

Let me take just one of your classic prevarications:

(c)  Malachi's double reference - Mal. 3:1 and 4:5 - for 'Elijah';

- Which is out rightly deceitful, because if you will read the so called “double reference” neither VERSE even remotely contradicts the other. The first verse says that the Lord will send his messenger: the second verse says that the Lord will send Elijah. . . SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? ? ? Viaro, stop trying to entertain us with comical lies, Rowan Atkinson’s Black Adder is all the comedy I need and I have the full DVD here in my room, thanks.

Now, what is 'outright deceitful' in noting that Malachi referred to John the Baptist's ministry in BOTH 3:1 and 4:5 - just what is 'outright deceitful' in that, and yet you are the same schmuck who agreed indeed that I was correct? Are you so desperate to 'prove' your misfooted theory of reincarnation that you only end up proving your IQ is badly in need of a repair?

However, let me move on to wrap this up for you, because your reactionary response hardly said anything new.

Here it is –

“IF you will receive it. . . he is Elijah who was to come. . .”

The context in which that conditional 'IF' applies is set out in my reply in post #33, where your quibbling on the word 'indeed' was an absurdity to begin with. I went so far as to remind you of John's own answer in John 1:21 where he categorically denied being the 'reincarnation' of Elijah ('I am NOT'), as well as gave other examples of the deixis of the conditional 'IF' and 'indeed' as used in Biblical prophecies (Mark 10:35-39). Just what substance have you given in consideration to them - or are we just to infer tacitly that you werre far too challenged to consider them at all that you just excused them rather with an amusing grumble?

If we read in terms of Viaro’s suggestion that it is “conditional” then – it simply means that the truth of the subsequent words are dependent on the conditionality of the word “if” –

Thus –

IF the apostles decided to receive what he was saying, then IN TRUTH, John was Elijah.

IF the apostles decided NOT to receive what he was saying, then IN TRUTH , John was not Elijah.

Thus Viaro is telling us that the truth or falsity of what Jesus was saying depended on whether or not the disciples chose to believe it!

Unless of course, as has become obvious, Viaro is too dense to know the proper application of the word “Conditional!”

I must send you back to school - you have rather confirmed that you wear shirt on your back without the slightest education in simple comprehension. So school up, viaro will now educate you - and after I'm done, please come back and grumble as usual like one of 'em touts with a borrowed diploma.

(1) I have often mentioned 'deixis' in this discussion - and all you needed to do was first get the meaning of that word and then see the context in which it appears in my posts. What does it mean?
Deixis from Wikipedia:

In linguistics, deixis refers to the phenomenon wherein understanding the meaning of certain words and phrases in an utterance requires contextual information. Words which have a fixed semantic meaning, but have a denotational meaning that constantly changes depending on time and/or place, are deictic. A word or phrase whose meaning requires this contextual information — for example, English pronouns — is said to be deictic. [. . . ] The term’s origin is Ancient Greek δεïξις "display, demonstration, or reference", the meaning "point of reference" in contemporary linguistics having been taken over from Chrysippus.

(2)  Why deixis? It is not just for 'context', but rather to see the big picture as to why the Bible does not infer reincarnation - and certainly that Jesus' statement in both Matthew 11 and 17 were not applying a literalism between Elijah and John the Baptist. This is clear when we keep in view that the same John the Baptist categorically denied being Elijah when the question was put to him in John 1:21. Thus, if we ignore the conditional 'IF' in Jesus' statement in Matt. 11:14, we cannot excuse John's categorical denial of being Elijah in John 1:21. To ignore the latter while emphasis the former is dubious indeed.

(3)  In examining the deixis of Biblical prophecies therefore, there are certain things which should not be ignored - these I would call 'identifiers' for now: these identifiers help us find the context and meaning of what Jesus meant as regards Malachi's prophecy of Elijah. Let's remind ourselves of these reminders:

[list][li]Elijah was to come before 'the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD' (Mal. 4:5)[/li]
[li]among other things Elijah's mission was to 'restore all things' (Matt. 17:11)[/li][/list]

(4)  From the 'identifiers' above, it is obvious that the apostles quite well understood that John the Baptists DID NOT 'restore all things' - Peter in Acts 3:20-21 makes clear that the restitution of all things is yet future: 'And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.' If John the baptist had been the 'reincarnation' of Elijah, he probably would have 'restored all things' - but why then would Peter put that very same event as yet future even after Jesus Christ was risen from the dead and ascended??

(5)  The 'restitution of all things' is spoken of in various ways: Jesus called it the 'regeneration' in Matt. 19:28 and 25:31 and pointed out that it was yet a FUTURE event. I explained this lucidly to Malbron in post #53. However, in Matt. 17:11 when Jesus spoke about Elijah's coming to 'restore all things', He never said that 'Elijah' had restored all things - please anyone with multilied heads should contest this and show me where Jesus said that 'Elijah' had already restored 'all things'!!

I needn’t have gone to this length to set it out, save for the fact that unless one sets out an argument for Viaro as though one is talking to a Kindergarten child, Viaro would never see the simplest logic – so long as it contradicts his dogma. This is the same way Viaro argued with me in another thread asserting that the will of God could differ from the word of God – all in a bid to defend the indefensible Trinity dogma!

I very much doubt that you have the slightest clue of the meaning of logic, and it would be such a bore to waste it on you, DeepSight. And this is not a discussion about the Trinity, so why drag that into this thread - feeling already desperate, are you? But here is where I'd like to wrap it up for you - and you can apply whatever logic at your very best disposal to escape this.

. . continuing from (#5) above:

(6)  But more to the point is that Jesus did not intend a 'reincarnation' between Elijah and John the Baptist - that is clear both from the 'identifiers' and the deixis of the references taken collectively and the categorical denial of John the Baptist in his own answer in John 1:21 ('And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not').

(7) From (6) above, there are a series of contrasts within the deixis of the prophecies that show that Jesus was NOT speaking about a 'reincarnated' Elijah. Let's see some of these:

[list][li]Definitions: while resurrection speaks of "a person rising from the dead", reincarnation speaks of "a previously dead person being born again as a baby" (ala DeepSight). This is a turning point in this discourse, for we have to ask which of these applies in Malachi's prophecy for Elijah in order for 'reincarnation' to occur:[/li][/list]

[list](a)   for reincarnation to occur, DEATH must of necessity have occured - this is clearly an irrefutable point that reincarnation teachers attest to, and even DeepSight had defined 'reincarnation' as a scenario where "a previously dead person is born again as a baby". However, Elijah did not see death, but was rather taken up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11).[/list]

[size=14pt]Now, if Elijah did NOT die at anytime, where is the 'reincarnation' in Jesus' statement in the NT? How could John the Baptist be the 'reincarnation' of someone who did not see death in the first place? Where is DeepSight's logic on this one?[/size]

[list]The only excuse here that 'reincarnationists' may make is that reincarnation does not mean what they already defined it to be, so that they can shift the goal post and prevaricate on their own definition once again![/list]


[list](b)  for reincarnation to occur, the person must have lived a 'past life' before death. But what 'past life' did John the Baptist live, seeing that he categorically DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21? There is no place where he ever hinted about any past life/lives or being the avatar of someone else - and his denial of being Elijah is very telling indeed, as it removes all grounds for any tosspot to argue reincarnation between him and Elijah! Further, Jesus Himself would most definite have inferred these two points of reincarnation (* Elijah's DEATH and *John the Baptist's past life) - if at all He meant to talk about reincarnation![/list]

[size=14pt]How does someone who talks about reincarnation completely IGNORE the very core elements that are necessary for reincarnation to even happen in the first place?[/size]

[list]How could reincarnation still be 'reincarnation' if DEATH did not occur in Elijah's case, nor was there a hint of any 'past life' of John the Baptist??[/list]

You see, DeepSight, you have tried to argue most blindly like a tosspot all along while completely ignoring the foundation of your own reincarnation! Unless you're an ultra-shanky buffoon, you will find that YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF 'REINCARNATION' hardly fits into the Elijah-John case! Elijah did not see death; nor did John the Baptist give any hint of a past life - and you will just have to come up with another idiotic definition of reincarnation to enter into dialogue on this subject!


The one thing that amazes me in people who argue like you do is that they hardly know what exactly they are talking about! Your own definition, DeepSight, is what I had hoped to see in the case of all those concerned in the passages you guys use for your non-sequitor of reincarnation. How do you plead now?

@viaro and nuclearboy: You guys have clinched the last few details that I left undiscussed. Interesting!

@viaro: Will you be kind enough to send me an email? We have unfinished business! mavenbox AT gmail.com

Deepsight.

Am signing off.

This argument like many others confirm to any rational mind that modern christianity is on a false doctrine. For several days, you have tried to explain to two "christians" the very words of their redeemer - Christ. Not complicated texts, simple very easy to understand text. What do you get? More aimless references that sidestep the meaning of Christ's words. If you try more complicated verses, you can imagine the outcome.

Paul said that when he was a child, he did childish things, but now that he is a man, he put away childish things. The religion of God will certainly prevail over the religion of men. What is the religion of God? Love, humility, charity and all godly virtues. The religion of men includes all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hindu etc that only know in part. Christ, the redeemer did not found any religion. He was confortable in the synagougue and anywhere. He only preached the coming of the kingdom of God. No matter what we believe, if you cannot practice Love, righteousness and follow peace with all men, you do not know God yet, you are still striving and scratching.

Now that the argument is in the open, rational minds will read the thread and many will learn from it. Continuing the discussions may be meaningless. My hope is that God will open the eyes of his elects to see the truth.

Marlbron please don't go! It was just getting more interesting!

Marlbron:

Deepsight.

Am signing off.

This argument like many others confirm to any rational mind that modern christianity is on a false doctrine. For several days, you have tried to explain to two "christians" the very words of their redeemer - Christ. Not complicated texts, simple very easy to understand text. What do you get? More aimless references that sidestep the meaning of Christ's words. If you try more complicated verses, you can imagine the outcome.

Paul said that when he was a child, he did childish things, but now that he is a man, he put away childish things. The religion of God will certainly prevail over the religion of men. What is the religion of God? Love, humility, charity and all godly virtues. The religion of men includes all religions - Christianity, Islam, Hindu etc that only know in part. Christ, the redeemer did not found any religion. He was confortable in the synagougue and anywhere. He only preached the coming of the kingdom of God. No matter what we believe, if you cannot practice Love, righteousness and follow peace with all men, you do not know God yet, you are still striving and scratching.

Now that the argument is in the open, rational minds will read the thread and many will learn from it. Continuing the discussions may be meaningless. My hope is that God will open the eyes of his elects to see the truth.

C.R.A.P! ARRANT RUBBISH!. NONSENSE WITH THE INGREDIENTS OF DELUSION! B.ULL.SH.IT NOT EVEN WELL DRESSED OR HIDDEN!

You are "showing christians" the meaning of words! Yet the bible says its words are not for any private interpretation! Viaro humored you by going the cyclical way in this. WHEN DID ELIJAH DIE FOR HIM TO BE RE-INCARNATED? SIMPLE QUESTION! WAS ABRAHAM "EXEMPTED" FROM RE-INCARNATION? EVEN SIMPLER! WHO ELSE WAS EXEMPTED? WHAT WERE YOU IN YOUR PAST LIFE?

Why intepret when there are other texts that make the issue clear? Why not address those direct texts that make nonsense out of your "theory". What a display of self-righteousness?

viaro:
I don't know whether or not there is a reincarnation. What I could say is that there are many things happening in our world that we just have no clue about. Indeed, the Biblical worldview does not argue for reincarnation (as far as I can understand), but that does not mean therefore that everything begins and ends there. Why I say this is because i know from experience that certain things have happened where I have no bleep what to say - people have accurately said things out of the blue that point to events that they could not have had prior cognisance of: and when checked, it turned out they were actually true to 'T'.

In discourses like this, I think what jcross22 said rings with me:

Reasonable and incisive.

Guys, i am leaving this one off: it is clear that it serves no useful purpose: it is also clear to me that the Christian discussants here have scant or no regard for the words of their God (Jesus).

I am certain that Viaro will twist and turn a zillion times over to avoid the words of his God (Jesus) - thus there is no point.

I firmly believe that all that needs to be said has been said already, and regarding his last posts, i will not revert further for i believe that the objective reader can see within my previous responses clear answers to his unfortunate comebacks.

@ Nuclearboy - Just one thing i will say: a death is a transition to another realm. An ascension is a transition to another realm: they mean the same thing in the context of this discussion. Please try to reflect carefully on that.

Cheers folks - see you when i see you.

Deepsight dem don beat you finish go rest abeg. . . . .

^^^ So be it then, mazaje: i will not be tempted back: for the scripture is clear enough if you cared to read it.

I have nothing more to add. Cheers.

PHILOSPHER: "Why are you so wary of thought? It is the one tool we have for organizing the world"

MASTER: "True. But thought can organize the world so well that you are no longer able to see it"

PHILOSOPHER: "How do you mean?"

MASTER: "A thought is a screen, not a mirror; that is why you live in a thought envelope, untouched by Reality".

^^^ Ah, the old sage at it again.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Ah, the old sage at it again.

LOL

@DeepSight
How have you been?

Imhotep i am beginning to fear that you are a great mystic whom it may be a sin to even address directly.

Deep Sight:

Imhotep i am beginning to fear that you are a great mystic whom it may be a sin to even address directly.

Well. . . I am just a regular guy walking about like every other person. Nothing scary about me at all . . .

^^^ I verily disbelieve you: i know that you are a messenger of the holy grail with seven guardians from the highest realm nestling at your feet.

I dare not mention the halo and the wings that attend thy everyword, o great sir, imperial highness, Lord Admiral of India, Viceroy of the Fleet of the Seven Seas, Global Potentate and Spiritual Excellency.

Googler:

Reasonable and incisive.

I concur that that statement of viaro's is reasonable.

The problem you often find with materialist thinkers and their counterparts at the religious end of the spectrum is that they are too dismissive.

Is the doctrine of reincarnation grounded on the Bible? Can it be objectively presented as a biblical doctrine? No. The scriptures that are often called into service to buttress it such as John 9:2 (1) require interpretation (2) conform to other possible interpretations (3) pale into insignificance when compared to the systematic body of arguments in favour of resurrection which are presented in a way that on the surface of it is exclusive of reincarnation. This explains why Christians often refuse to see reincarnation in these verses following from the fact that this doctrine is not taught by the church. But I will make the following observations:

1. I do not know whether Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist or not. But I find it quite incredible that anyone will believe that a human being such as we are, did not die but was shipped into heaven in flesh and blood(!). Maybe that was to win arguments but I rather find John 3:13 unambiguous. Here is how noetic explains it.
2.  I have interacted with a number of Christians who are open minded on reincarnation and others who accept it, the overwhelming majority of the latter being clergy.
3. Most who patiently examine the doctrine of reincarnation concede that it is reasonable and logical.
4. I do not have a personal experience of reincarnation but of the doctrines I have examined purporting to explain existence, reincarnation is the most logical, reasonable and just.