Cells that act like unique, adaptable organisms...

[Cleric K]

Probably the greatest difference between exoteric and esoteric (gnostic) Christianity is the question of Karma and Reincarnation. In certain sense it was an evolutionary necessity for most of the Western souls to pass through the pedagogical school of one-lifetime-only paradigm. This places a certain sense of urgency and focus on moral life. But more and more this view will be a serious hinderance for any true penetration into reality, and ironically, at some point it will begin to work against true morality. This can already be seen in Eastern Orthodoxy (with which I'm more familiar). Since the church doesn't really have much to say against the moral life of those who pursue the depths of Christianity, they simply begin wild accusations for deviation from dogma. But the church really degenerates when it practically begins to vilify and spread actual lies. And this already happens today. I don't know, maybe they think that if they exaggerate things to make them a little more striking, even if this includes some lies, they are protecting their followers.
And here it is up to every individual to make the right observations and judge rightly who's defending the Truth and who's simply clinging to the comfortable patterns of old.

And although in the bible nowhere is explicitly spoken of reincarnations, these things were known of. They have even made their way in implicit forms, like:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Such a question simply doesn't make sense if the disciples were not aware of reincarnation.

[Lou Gold]

Probably the greatest difference between exoteric and esoteric (gnostic) Christianity is the question of Karma and Reincarnation. In certain sense it was an evolutionary necessity for most of the Western souls to pass through the pedagogical school of one-lifetime-only paradigm. This places a certain sense of urgency and focus on moral life. But more and more this view will be a serious hinderance for any true penetration into reality, and ironically, at some point it will begin to work against true morality. This can already be seen in Eastern Orthodoxy (with which I'm more familiar). Since the church doesn't really have much to say against the moral life of those who pursue the depths of Christianity, they simply begin wild accusations for deviation from dogma. But the church really degenerates when it practically begins to vilify and spread actual lies. And this already happens today. I don't know, maybe they think that if they exaggerate things to make them a little more striking, even if this includes some lies, they are protecting their followers.
And here it is up to every individual to make the right observations and judge rightly who's defending the Truth and who's simply clinging to the comfortable patterns of old.

And although in the bible nowhere is explicitly spoken of reincarnations, these things were known of. They have even made their way in implicit forms, like:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Such a question simply doesn't make sense if the disciples were not aware of reincarnation.

Why can it not make sense tribally and in the sense of ancestor worship without notions of reincarnation?

[Lou Gold]

Probably the greatest difference between exoteric and esoteric (gnostic) Christianity is the question of Karma and Reincarnation. In certain sense it was an evolutionary necessity for most of the Western souls to pass through the pedagogical school of one-lifetime-only paradigm. This places a certain sense of urgency and focus on moral life. But more and more this view will be a serious hinderance for any true penetration into reality, and ironically, at some point it will begin to work against true morality. This can already be seen in Eastern Orthodoxy (with which I'm more familiar). Since the church doesn't really have much to say against the moral life of those who pursue the depths of Christianity, they simply begin wild accusations for deviation from dogma. But the church really degenerates when it practically begins to vilify and spread actual lies. And this already happens today. I don't know, maybe they think that if they exaggerate things to make them a little more striking, even if this includes some lies, they are protecting their followers.
And here it is up to every individual to make the right observations and judge rightly who's defending the Truth and who's simply clinging to the comfortable patterns of old.

And although in the bible nowhere is explicitly spoken of reincarnations, these things were known of. They have even made their way in implicit forms, like:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Such a question simply doesn't make sense if the disciples were not aware of reincarnation.

Why can it not make sense tribally and in the sense of ancestor worship without notions of reincarnation?

[Cleric K]

Why can it not make sense tribally and in the sense of ancestor worship without notions of reincarnation?

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Clearly they make distinction between the individual man and the ancestors (the parents). How could have the individual man sinned to deserve being born blind, if this is his first and only incarnation?

But anyway, I'm very far from the thought that such things can be 'proven' through the scriptures. The point is that everything clicks into place when it's viewed from the right perspective.

[Lou Gold]

Why can it not make sense tribally and in the sense of ancestor worship without notions of reincarnation?

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Clearly they make distinction between the individual man and the ancestors (the parents). How could have the individual man sinned to deserve being born blind, if this is his first and only incarnation?

But anyway, I'm very far from the thought that such things can be 'proven' through the scriptures. The point is that everything clicks into place when it's viewed from the right perspective.

How could have the individual man sinned to deserve being born blind, if this is his first and only incarnation?

Through genetics and epigenetics no notion of reincarnation would be required. Reincarnation is denied by materialist science, which offers much about intergenerational transference.

[Simon Adams]

Interesting. There's an ancient Jewish commentator named Rashi who interpreted it as follows. After Isaac asks Abraham where is the lamb for a burnt-offering, "Abraham said: 'God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son", for this Rashi says the punctuation should be:
"'God will provide Himself the lamb, for a burnt-offering my son", so he did tell him he was the offering. Any way This is not the simple interpretation of the verse, since in the Hebrew source, though there is no punctuation, there are musical punctuations.
In any case, in a strange way it is these various ways of interpreting verses - with not only the direct meaning but also with allegoric, imaginative comparisons and "inner meanings", which turned the biblical text into something completely different - that gave rise to the ways of interpretation of psychoanalysis. Freud wouldn't' be to happy to be conscious about this

Interesting comment about “musical punctuation”. Is that in terms of the natural rhythm of the text, or in terms of actual singing of the texts?

[Simon Adams]

Probably the greatest difference between exoteric and esoteric (gnostic) Christianity is the question of Karma and Reincarnation. In certain sense it was an evolutionary necessity for most of the Western souls to pass through the pedagogical school of one-lifetime-only paradigm. This places a certain sense of urgency and focus on moral life. But more and more this view will be a serious hinderance for any true penetration into reality, and ironically, at some point it will begin to work against true morality. This can already be seen in Eastern Orthodoxy (with which I'm more familiar). Since the church doesn't really have much to say against the moral life of those who pursue the depths of Christianity, they simply begin wild accusations for deviation from dogma. But the church really degenerates when it practically begins to vilify and spread actual lies. And this already happens today. I don't know, maybe they think that if they exaggerate things to make them a little more striking, even if this includes some lies, they are protecting their followers.
And here it is up to every individual to make the right observations and judge rightly who's defending the Truth and who's simply clinging to the comfortable patterns of old.

And although in the bible nowhere is explicitly spoken of reincarnations, these things were known of. They have even made their way in implicit forms, like:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Such a question simply doesn't make sense if the disciples were not aware of reincarnation.

(my misunderstanding removed here)

I’ve seen a few buts from the early church fathers about reincarnation, responding to the common belief from Plato and others. One of the examples that crops up a lot is the people asking John the baptist whether he is Elijah, referring to the prophesy that Elijah will return with the messiah. The gospels suggest that he is not actually Elijah, but comes “in the spirit” of Elijah, in a similar way to Jesus coming in the spirit of David. But there are clearly other cases where people at the time were at least conscious of the idea of reincarnation, such as when the people think Jesus is the return of various different prophets.

One of the main reasons the church fathers went against reincarnation is explicitly because of the duality it required between body and soul, a rejection of the gnostic/platonic idea of the soul trapped in the body. For me it’s one of the very few things the church has a firm view on that I’m not convinced either way. There are some compelling stories of ‘remembered lives’ (as well as a lot of regression BS). From a personal perspective there are dreams of ‘familiar seeming’ places, and deja vu moments, that I don’t understand. They feel quite ‘personal’, but maybe they are some kind of connection via mental resonance, rather than a personal memory. Nonetheless I do agree with the church in that it is of no benefit to believe in it. If there really is something that wipes the mind and puts us into new bodies, we shouldn’t live any differently, and should assume that this is the life that counts.

[AshvinP]

The problem with revisionst understandings is always about how well they fit with that onto that which they are transposed. Many of the early church fathers knew the apostles, spent time in their company. This stuff was so important to them, that everything else in their lives was directed towards it. They all willingly went to their deaths based on the understanding they received from the apostles. If you accept the fundamental precept that Jesus was the incarnation of the logos, then no matter how ignorant those around him were of the advances we have made in understanding the mechanics of nature, the fact remains that they all reported a message of the importance of ritual;

I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.

56Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven.

He stressed the importance of the rock he laid on earth so much that he renamed one of his disciples. These are signs of what was and is important. The grounding so that our feet can be on solid ground, whilst we ponder the mysteries. It’s so easy to stand on shaky ground, where we end up spending more time and effort trying to fix other people’s problems than our own. If you step back, that’s never going to be a sustainable model for society. Let alone a route to truth.

As a loose analogy, think of the transformation from Newtonian mechanics to GR - it was not simply a transformation of ideas around the edges, but the very concept of "space" was discovered to be radically different than what it was previously thought to be. In many ways, these transformations are actually leading us back to wisdom previously experienced in communal settings of the early Church and Middle Ages, which was then subdued by the rationalist-dualist era. Yet now, because of that modern era, we are also in a position to experience and know that wisdom even more deeply within our individual souls. Much like this guy:

“Were not our eyes profoundly of the sun
How could they behold the light?
Were not our strength from God's own being won.
How could we feel so in Things divine delight.”
-Goethe

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter! A son of man went down into hell, took all our bad karma with him, and clung to the good with such fierce spirit and love that it couldn’t hold him down. Even with my small experiences of hell, I can see that this is an unimaginable triumph, it’s like the Battle of Thermopylae, but the Spartans winning. Even if he understood how to reconcile GR and QM, it would be insignificant next to that which sustained him on such a journey. This is what we celebrate today. A triumph of love, courage and humility over all the philosophies of the world.

The spiritual evolutionary perspective is what allows us to see the reality of transubstantiation and the reality of Christ's victory over death. Both of those are made largely metaphorical by the static historical view in which our lives become about grinding out the days until we die to join Christ in "heaven" or Christ returns for "final judgment" of the world. What does it mean to partake in consuming Christ's flesh and blood, or to partake in his victory over evil and death? I am not familiar with RC or EO tradition in practice, but I have no problem believing what Cleric said about EO in the 21st century, because it logically follows from a rigid dogmatic faith carrying over from the modern era.

PS - the verse which implies reincarnation seems pretty clear to me... how could a man sin before he was born blind otherwise? Reincarnation is not dualist anymore than regular incarnation of soul-spirit into body is dualist (obviously the 'body' is not referring to material entity independent of mind).

[Lou Gold]

If time is unreal or Eternal, then reincarnation is an artifact of duality. And, from the East, Ramana denied reincarnation.

[AshvinP]

If time is unreal or Eternal, then reincarnation is an artifact of duality. And, from the East, Ramana denied reincarnation.

And what makes you think time is "unreal"? Time is a phenomenon like all other phenomenon - it is how the true relationships between one set of percepts-concepts and another set appear to us. Under idealism, appearances of the world cannot be "unreal", only misunderstood.