Reincarnation

Miami Beach, Florida: trekearth

Reincarnation: Philosophy Talk: April 30, 2015: John Perry

Cited

Here’s a definition from the Dalia Lama --- he believes himself to be the reincarnation of previous Dalai Lamas, and as he gets old is starting to think about the next one, and has been writing about it. He says, quite succinctly, "In order to accept reincarnation . . .we need to accept the existence of past and future lives. Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death.

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

From MPhil

Woods mentioned the Hindu and Buddhist principal of reincarnation:

"The only answer is to try by good works to be reincarnated in an ever higher existence until at last one can escape the cycle of life and find oblivion through union with the great world principle." Woods (1974)(1982:18).

Simon Blackburn defined reincarnation, also known as metempsychosis:

"The transmigration of the soul, whereby upon death the soul takes up residence in a new body." Blackburn (1996: 241).

I will offer two objections to reincarnation.

One is Biblical and is provided by R. M. Enroth. Biblical Christianity, in contrast to reincarnational teaching, emphasizes grace, atonement, and forgiveness for fallen humanity through the once-for-all death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Christian’s disavowal of reincarnation is anchored in the biblical assertion that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb. 9:27). Enroth (1996: 926). Clearly the Biblical world view opposes reincarnation, as a spirit belongs to a body for everlasting existence after resurrection. There is the earthly life and then the afterlife. One’s position in the afterlife is judged by God. A belief in Christ means forgiveness of sins, disbelief in Christ means judgment for those sins. Judgment of sins means guilt and separation from God. There would thus be no need for reincarnation as a person’s destiny had been determined by their one earthly life.

Two, existence of the human spirit cannot be proven empirically, but in Christianity, at least there is Scriptural evidence of Christ’s bodily resurrection in which his body contained his spirit. Scripture states that believers will experience the same type of resurrection. Philosophically, it does not seem far-fetched for human beings in the afterlife, if it existed, to contain the same, yet altered (for everlasting life) spirit and body; however, in my view, there is neither empirical nor deductive evidence to support reincarnation.

Empirically, there would seemingly be no scientific way to prove reincarnation since spirits are seen as entering new bodies with different genetic code, each body thus appears to be distinct from another. From a deductive perspective, most people can barely remember their own past, let alone past lives.

For people who claim to remember past lives it would be extremely hard to prove that they lived these lives, for those past lives would probably not be documented to see if they were actual, and if they were, it could be thought that perhaps the person claiming to have had a past life was simply using historical information. As well, with the idea of reincarnation and karma ("the universal law of cause and effect, as applied to the deeds of people") Blackburn (1996: 206-207), without a clear recollection of past lives, I doubt that people can learn from past failings and achieve oneness with God. How can one learn from past mistakes which one cannot remember? It makes much more sense for one to be judged by God for earthly life and then receive a reward or punishment in understanding.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) ‘Reincarnation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Reality check

Notre Dame de Paris: Carefreetraveler.net

Reality check 

An acquaintance friend wrote some comments on a Facebook page, recently. As they were not directly stated for me, but relate to my views, which I have discussed with this person on several occasions, I think it is ethical that I can paraphrase part of his essay and then accurately reply.

Paraphrased

This person is concerned that many people in the evangelical church are seeking a potential date and are looking for what they do not offer.

Some persons in the evangelical church are seeking from potential dates, different levels of age, fitness and appearance that he/she does not possess.

This person then also writes that persons should only seek similar levels of maturity and related.

In regard to maturity and related, especially spiritual maturity, I can basically agree with the acquaintance friend that in general, one should consider a date of a similar level of maturity. I would follow this myself, but I cannot rule out that God could, in his perfect will have a dating scenario where one Christian mentors another.

My acquaintance friend did not document any Scripture in the essay presented, however:

2 Corinthians, Chapter 6 could be used by some evangelicals as a proof text for support of dating within one's level of age, fitness and appearance.

David J. A. Clines explains that 6: 14 documents that believers are not to be yoked with unbelievers (1401). In other words, the donkey should not plow with the ox because they will not plow in unison. They are in philosophical terms ontologically (existence and nature) too different to work well closely together.

Note, the context is believer and unbeliever. Not believer and believer. It is a significant theological stretch with this section of 2 Corinthians 6 to fit for an evangelical agenda of some that favour a social rules, market value dating system. Market value dating (MVD) is my term.

My acquaintance friend assumes it is error to seek in a dating context, different levels of age, fitness and appearance, but this person's view, at least, is not significantly biblical. The approach this person disagrees with would not be prohibited by 2 Corinthians 6 in the context of believer/unbeliever, nor by 2 Corinthians 6, in the theological stretch of applying it to believer/believer.

Many commentators have noted that the donkey and ox would not plow well together because they are different animals, they are not uniform and there work would not be in unison.

In unions that require the same world view, Christians should not too tightly associate with non-Christians. This would include in a romantic context. It means that Christians should be careful with too close of associations with those within the world. This does not prohibit evangelism and witness.

Two Christians dating need to yoke together well spiritually. But common sense informs this is not at all guaranteed, nor should it be assumed, by two people having similar age, fitness and level of appearance. Sadly, this view, lacking theological and philosophical depth, from my acquaintance friend, in my opinion, has been heavily influenced by secular views on market value dating (MVD) within the evangelical church.

What my acquaintance friend is stating is logical. In a MVD system one has a much better practical, opportunity for dating if one dates according to social rules and MVD. But dating following modern secular social rules and MVD does not equate to a biblical approach of dating someone of similar spiritual maturity in Jesus Christ.

The logic of dating in what is considered social equality, does not necessarily equate to truth. Using logical premises does not necessarily equate with true conclusions, as I have discussed on this website in archives.

What is true is logical, but what is logical is not always true.

The view of my acquaintance friend overlooks many things, but on some key points, for example:

Maturity it is not necessarily based on age, especially spiritual maturity. Rather philosophically and practically birds of a same feather, flock together. Having the same worldview and similar views on key issues is crucial in dating.

Many males in the evangelical church that can still potentially procreate, desire a female to date that can potentially procreate if marriage occurs. There is a biblical mandate of course to do so if one can find a mate (Genesis 1). Those men excluded would be the aged and those physically and mentally disabled, not simply those that are significantly older. Assuming only younger men should mate with younger women is a secular construct that I would reason has been fueled to some extent by radical feminism. I am not denying that by nature, typically persons wish to date and marry close to their age. I am rather stating that exceptions should be allowed for philosophically and theologically, in regard to youthful older men.

Only dating in one’s league looks wise and social rules wise, is a view this acquaintance friend is really stating in an evangelical spiritual guise; does not necessarily appease the burn of 1 Corinthians 7.

πυροῦσθαι

Purousqai is the New Testament Greek word for ‘burn’ here. The Greek New Testament (1993: 581). Strong defines the root word burn here as purow. He explains that the word burn comes from the Greek word for fire pur. Strong (1986: 84). Strong defines the root word puroo in 7:9 as to kindle, to be ignited, glow, be refined, to be inflamed with anger, grief, lust, to burn, fiery, be on fire, try. Strong (1986: 84). Fee writes that the use of the word ‘burn’ here is metaphorical, and could refer to either burning with desire or burning in judgment. Fee (1987: 289).

Fee thinks the context shows that the meaning is inner desire. Fee (1987: 289). Paul was stating that rather than being consumed by sexual sin, one should marry. Fee (1987: 289). Fee explains that marriage here is the proper alternative for those struggling with desire and sin. Fee (1987: 289).

First Corinthians 7:9 shows that a Christian struggling with sexual sin should pursue marriage, but I must point out that if there is not at least minimal, significant mutual attraction, the ‘burn’ will not be appeased. A person struggling with desire will not very likely overcome the desire to be with someone attractive, by being with someone that he/she does not find attractive, and I am not meaning this in solely or primarily physical terms. We need to be careful in the Church and realize that marriage in itself is not a remedy for sexual sin, but marriage in mutual attraction can be.

My acquaintance friend (paraphrased) wrote that people that are not seeking ‘same’ need a reality check.

God willing, I provide a theological reality check…

The settle for the one's league view and approach to dating, within MVD is pragmatic and logical. But for those that wish to use proof texts in support of such views, this approach is not directly supported by 2 Corinthians 6 and 1 Corinthians 7 implies sexual attraction is required.

If the burn can be dealt with by seeking dating and then marriage ‘sameness’ that is good, but there is no theological guarantee that it would in the case of every single Christian seeking a mate.

A better critique than this agenda from my acquaintance friend would be to encourage those single, seeking dating in Christ to seek mutual, spiritual, intellectual and physical mutual attraction in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or to stay single, even while suffering.

CLINES, DAVID, J. A. (1986), 2 Corinthians, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Free will is not the ultimate answer for the problem of evil

Notre Dame de Paris: trekearth

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology 

From my MPhil with edits

Statement four:

The fourth statement was perhaps the most controversial. God wills evil for the greater good. I do take this viewpoint, and I am in agreement with the writings of John Calvin on this matter within The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, as well as in Institutes of the Christian Religion, and has been documented throughout the thesis. This idea has been discussed through this thesis. I am not stating that God sins in any way by willing evil for the greater good, nor does he force people or fallen angels to sin.

People sin by nature and choice, and God uses this evil for the greater good. Since he is infinite and dealing with finite creation, all things work under the subjection of his will and I humbly, and without complete understanding, state that he manages the Universe in a far more controlled manner than to simply allow evil to take place. By not preventing all evil, and by using it for the greater good, he is in a sense willing it. The difference between God’s will and the sinful will when evil takes place, is that God’s will and motives alone remain pure and consistent within God’s good purposes.

The idea of human free will alone does not demonstrate why God has to allow evil, as opposed to willing it. I do believe that human beings require a certain level of freedom to choose or reject God, but God could have prevented evil’s existence by not creating angels and then human beings. God knew there would be a fall, and in a sense willed the results of that fall by not preventing it from taking place, but it was within his right to have evil flourish in his creation for a time until the Kingdom of God culminated.

It must be stated again that God did not coerce human beings into sinning and thus causing the fall, but he knew that this fall would take place and did not willingly prevent it. It can be deduced that God thought the evil and suffering in a corrupted creation, willed in sinful disobedience, was a tolerable situation for a time. Jesus Christ would, through his work, restore that creation and culminate a Kingdom of God filled with resurrected human beings who had experienced evil, and now through the Holy Spirit willingly rejected evil completely.

There are, as well, many instances in our creation where God could have prevented evils from taking place, for instance the American bombings of September 11, 2001. Some may argue that God must allow human free will and that is why these events took place. However, God could have prevented this from taking place, as it can be shown that many evils are prevented and certainly God would have his hand in this.

Many times evil plans are thwarted, such as Nazi Germany’s plans to conquer Europe. In that case, Adolph Hitler’s free will was not allowed to completely flourish. It was not that God forced Hitler to think differently, but rather the Fuhrer’s plans were defeated by the Allies. I do not think free will is the ultimate answer in the matter of the problem of evil, rather it is largely God’s will that determines what will ultimately take place, at the same time not forcing his creation to sin against him. This sin is achieved by people who are in the sinful biological line of Adam and Eve, and thus possess sinful nature which leads to sinful choices. 

This is not determinism (hard) on God’s part. it is soft-determinism and compatibilism,  God has an ultimate plan, and some sinful actions will take place within the plan and some will not. I grant, that in this sense, God allows all to sin against him but their wills are always under the authority of God’s ultimate will, who can thwart sinful plans as he chooses.

March 6, 2018

I added for this edit today that this is not hard determinism, and further explained, which is what I meant when I originally stated determinism in 2003. I meant determinism as in hard determinism and was guided by my adviser at Wales to define it as such, while being guided to state determinism. This was further clarified within my PhD and my PhD better represents my view, which did evolve.

CALVIN, JOHN (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Stoicism

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

From my MPhil: University of Wales Stoicism:

Woods described Stoicism as follows: In direct contrast to escapism stands Stoicism. Founded by Zeno, in 300 B.C., . . . With regard to suffering, Stoicism is apathetic. Without knowing it, many people follow the basic philosophy of Stoicism. Suffering is to be faced with a spirit of self-sufficiency. . . . The Stoic determines to live so that no person or thing is essential to his existence. He strives to arrive at the point where he does not care what happens to anyone, including himself. Woods (1974)(1982: 19-20).
---

March 5, 2018

Blackburn explains that stoicism is a unified, logical, physical and moral philosophy. (363). The name arises from stoa poikile or painted porch in Athens where Stoicism was initially taught. (363).
The first recognized with this philosophy was Zeno of Citium that founded the related school in 300 BC. (363). There were other documented stoics over the next centuries. (363). The philosophy eventually entered into the Roman Empire. (363)

Stoicism is based on apprehensive perception, with a cosmology that supports determinism and order. (363). Interestingly, Blackburn writes that stoicism provided a proof for God's existence that used an argument from design. (363-364).

It holds to an intellectual calmness and the moral order of the universe. (364).

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Stoicism is a type of eudaimonic virtue ethics, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve happiness (in the eudaimonic sense). However, the Stoics also recognized the existence of “indifferents” (to eudaimonia) that could nevertheless be preferred (for example, health, wealth, education) or dispreferred (for example, sickness, poverty, ignorance), because they had (respectively, positive or negative) planning value with respect to the ability to practice virtue. Stoicism was very much a philosophy meant to be applied to everyday living, focused on ethics (understood as the study of how to live one’s life), which was in turn informed by what the Stoics called “physics” (nowadays, a combination of natural science and metaphysics) and what they called “logic” (a combination of modern logic, epistemology, philosophy of language, and cognitive science).

Massimo Pigliucci City
University of New York, U. S. A.

Eudaimonic is happiness and welfare.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.