Rebirth/Reincarnation in Christianity

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Pax, Vajradhara,

Not to pre-empt your reply, but a note -

The teachings of reincarnation or metempsychosis are not part of orthodox Christianity. This is not to say they weren't espoused by early Christian sects, but that is not to say that those sects were right because they did. Invariably such teachings 'crossed over' into Christianity from Greek or Egyptian mysticism.

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

i realize that these teachings are not included in the Orthodox tradition in the modern day. that there existed such teachings in the Christian tradition, however, is not in dispute between us, it would appear. moreover, that these teachings were espoused by some of the most prominent members of the early church also is not in dispute betwixt us.

Originally Posted by Thomas

There is an attitude to the body that locates the individual self as something of a 'ghost in the machine' - that the body is just a temporary receptacle at best, and the misbegotten creation of something evil at its worst. The gnostic notion of the creation - in fact everything that we call 'nature' - being an abortive attempt to mimic the Divine Realm is this notion in extremis.

perhaps this is an attitude that is prevelant in the west and in Christiandom? which gnostic sect are you referring to, they did not share a common cosmology nor a common set of teachings... though there were many things that they had in common... hmm.. that was a bit cumbersome but i think that you see what i'm getting at.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Christianity is founded on the notion that God created the world 'and saw that it was good' - and in the case of man 'very good' - and believes that this includes his body as well as his soul.

i would go so far as to say that all monotheistic traditions have this same general worldview. though perhaps outside the narrowness of this thread, i have always considered that Jesus' sacrifice was the foundation upon which Christianity was built.

[quote=Thomas]

The theomorphic nature of Adam, or Primordial Man, is the marriage of essence and substance, of purusha and prakriti to use the Vedic terms, and both are Divine in their own dimension.

Thus to orthodox Christianity man is a hypostasis of body and soul, to allow for either reincarnation or metempsychosis reduces the essential dignity of the body to that of a vessel - and again denies nature any part in the Divine Theophany.
[quote]

the "essential dignity" of this skin bag seems to be imparted by your religious world view, is that correct? needless to say, all compounded things decay, bodies included. it is my opinion that the physical body is so emphasized in the Christian tradition due to the historical nature of the seperation of man and God, which requires an historical event to rectify. there are other aspects of this as well. consider, for instance, the Arminian heresy. for those that don't know, this heresy was basically due to their belief that the ressurrection of Jesus was a spiritual one and not a physical one.

Originally Posted by Thomas

This was one aspect of the Christian 'scandal' - that the body had a validity with regard to God, and furthermore that resurrection applied to the body and not the spirit alone - or rather the resurrection applies to the whole person, and not a constituent element of that person.

What form this body takes is another issue, but basically the body, in all its forms - subtle and gross, corporeal or otherwise - is a manifestation of the soul in a given dimension or domain, and as such the soul has its body, the body has its soul, and these two are one.

Thomas

i suppose that we'll have to disagree on this point, which is fine... it would be a bit odd if we were to agree on everything, wouldn't it??

in any event, from our point of view, there is no such a thing as a "soul" or anything of the sort. one does wonder at times, if perhaps the different traditions are trying to indicate the same thing but due to language and culture, they express it differently.

moreover, in our tradition, placing value on the body is like putting money into a safe with a hole in the bottom... nothing you place in it will remain.. since that is so, why place anything there to begin with?

[Thomas]

Pax, Vajradhara

I think we shall have to agree to disagree, as our two perspectives are fundamentally different on this point.

the "essential dignity" of this skin bag seems to be imparted by your religious world view, is that correct?

This stems from the view that 'existence' in all its modes of manifestation, from God downward, is distinct from the One - its distinction being the means of its recognition - and this distinction is real (ie not a dream, etc); that its ontological source is in the Divine which lies beyond all knowing, all comprehension, and that it is therefore essentially 'good'.

The corporeal body is a manifestation of 'body' in a particular form in a particular domain - the mineral, flora, fauna, human and angelic forms are all 'bodies', as are natures, characters, ideas, colours, sounds, concepts, truths, and so forth - so we believe that although an angelic body might be 'more perfect' than a human body, or the Platonic Idea might be more perfect than its manifesting Form, but all is relative and thereby a matter of degree.

The determination of man as body and the 'self' which possesses the body, and that thereby the body is disposable if not detestable, is counter to Christian doctrine, which believes in the essental sacred nature and origin of all things.

Thomas

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Thomas

What Origen actually wrote was:
"Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?"

Thus not only does the author of this article actually and intentionally misrepresent Origen's words, for he was quoting Celsus, but also ignores the fact that Origen goes on to demolish this argument on logical grounds (that is a Christian logic).

* * * * *

Namaste Thomas,

it's taken me a little while to respond to this.. sorry about that.

here's the entire Chapter:

CHAP. XXXII. But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

this seems unequivical to me. a soul is being put into a body.. plain and simple. this is saying that Jesus' body had to be special becuase his soul was superior to others.

wouldn't you agree?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

yes, we shall have to agree to disagree on this point. you are absolutely correct, we are approaching it from two radically different persepectives and there seems to be little room for agreement or common ground.

so be it. it would be strange, as i said earlier, to find that we agreed on everything

in essence the difference is thus, as far as i can tell:

God is seperate from creation

and

God is creation.

of course, this is a Brahmaical view, and i don't share it due to the concepts it's imputing, though i agree with the general nature of the statement.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Pax, Vajradhara

I think we shall have to agree to disagree, as our two perspectives are fundamentally different on this point.



This stems from the view that 'existence' in all its modes of manifestation, from God downward, is distinct from the One - its distinction being the means of its recognition - and this distinction is real (ie not a dream, etc); that its ontological source is in the Divine which lies beyond all knowing, all comprehension, and that it is therefore essentially 'good'.

The corporeal body is a manifestation of 'body' in a particular form in a particular domain - the mineral, flora, fauna, human and angelic forms are all 'bodies', as are natures, characters, ideas, colours, sounds, concepts, truths, and so forth - so we believe that although an angelic body might be 'more perfect' than a human body, or the Platonic Idea might be more perfect than its manifesting Form, but all is relative and thereby a matter of degree.

The determination of man as body and the 'self' which possesses the body, and that thereby the body is disposable if not detestable, is counter to Christian doctrine, which believes in the essental sacred nature and origin of all things.

Thomas

[neoxenos]

We do not remember our past lives just as we do not remember our current ones.

For example, there are huge gaps in every day in which we cannot remember. If we had to dictate everything we said 20 years ago we could not do it. Maybe we could get a few things, here and there, but there is more blanks than memories... and when this life is no longer around to remind you of the past, everything goes...

This is because are consciousness is sleeping, and we need to awaken it.

Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes, [and] thou shalt be satisfied with bread. – Proverbs 20:13

Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober. – 1 Thessalonians 5:6

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by neoxenos

We do not remember our past lives just as we do not remember our current ones.

For example, there are huge gaps in every day in which we cannot remember. If we had to dictate everything we said 20 years ago we could not do it. Maybe we could get a few things, here and there, but there is more blanks than memories... and when this life is no longer around to remind you of the past, everything goes...

This is because are consciousness is sleeping, and we need to awaken it.


Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes, [and] thou shalt be satisfied with bread. – Proverbs 20:13

Therefore let us not sleep, as [do] others; but let us watch and be sober. – 1 Thessalonians 5:6

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

what about people with photographic memories?

what about people that claim to remember their past lives and provide details that are historically verifiable and then are verified?

what do you mean by "consciousness is sleeping"? are you meaning to indicate aspects of consciousness or the entire thing?

[neoxenos]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

what about people with photographic memories?

what about people that claim to remember their past lives and provide details that are historically verifiable and then are verified?

what do you mean by "consciousness is sleeping"? are you meaning to indicate aspects of consciousness or the entire thing?

Dear Vajradhara,

Well, I am interested to ask someone with photographic memory about this. Does anyone care to comment? Does photographic memory fade away?

It is absolutely possible to recover our experiences from past lives, as I have been told at least. I dedicated only two meditations on attempting to uncover the earliest memories of this current life, and I found myself with positive results. So, someone who is much more profound in the art of meditation (I am just a beginner) I am certain can go back to previous lives.

By the sleeping consciousness I mean that we are rarely awake and vigilant throughout life. Usually, we can get by nearly all the time through conditioned and mechanical movements. For example, when we drive to work in the morning, we are tired, we basically turn on auto-pilot, our physical bodies are driving but we are psychologically somewhere else.

So when we say someone is an Awakened Individual, that means they have an awakened consciousness. A consciousness that does not dream. A consciousness that instead of dreaming lives consciously in the superior worlds, day and night.

It is a large topic. I dedicated the first 50 pages of my book to this topic, and, even then, only a superficial understanding can be found.

But, we can do an exercise to get direct experience of our sleeping consciousness. Go out for a walk, or "go and clean your bowl," and consciously experience everything around you, observe your being within the body and the environment surrounding the body. Then, when you are done, do a retrospective exercise. See how much you can remember. If someone can go five minutes in conscious observation of life, without fault, without dream (psychological wanderings), then they are well above average.

So, I would say about 97% of our consciousness is sleeping. Just about all of it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by neoxenos

Dear Vajradhara,


Well, I am interested to ask someone with photographic memory about this. Does anyone care to comment? Does photographic memory fade away?

unfortunatly, this is not an ability that i have.. so we'll both hope that one follows my insane, lurching steps and ends up here with us

It is absolutely possible to recover our experiences from past lives, as I have been told at least. I dedicated only two meditations on attempting to uncover the earliest memories of this current life, and I found myself with positive results. So, someone who is much more profound in the art of meditation (I am just a beginner) I am certain can go back to previous lives.

well... this is simply amazing, from the Buddhist point of view at least. in our tradition, full recollection of ones past lives is only attained when you reach the 10th level of consciousness and are, effectively an Effect Stage Buddha. normal medatition, even through vastly advanced practices such as Annutara Yoga, which is a tantric practice, are incapable of achieving this. your meditational abilities could be truly staggering.... perhpas... you should considering exploring this aspect of your being more fully, you could be of great benefit to all sentient beings.

By the sleeping consciousness I mean that we are rarely awake and vigilant throughout life. Usually, we can get by nearly all the time through conditioned and mechanical movements. For example, when we drive to work in the morning, we are tired, we basically turn on auto-pilot, our physical bodies are driving but we are psychologically somewhere else.

hmm... whilst this is true to a certain extent, it's certainly not the case for all. are you familiar with a term called "multi tasking" from the computer field? this is a term that is used to mean that more than one task is being done in parallel, even though only one task is being displayed to the screen. our brains work somewhat like this... of course, they aren't bivalent systems.. they are multivalent.. but that's conversation for another thread

the Buddhist tradition.. and this is why my summation of my religion is like it is... is about being fully and completely present and aware in this very moment... and methodologies for accomplishing that... not only that... but once accomplished... for maintaining it in perpetuity.

So when we say someone is an Awakened Individual, that means they have an awakened consciousness. A consciousness that does not dream. A consciousness that instead of dreaming lives consciously in the superior worlds, day and night.

interesting... we, Buddhists that is, would have a different take on this... though we'd agree in principle with your statement, i would think. we'd say, by contrast, that all sentient beings are awake by nature.. that is your essence, however, your essence has been obscured by all manner of defilements. to think that awakening is beyond your nature is to place it outside yourself and that is delusion.

It is a large topic. I dedicated the first 50 pages of my book to this topic, and, even then, only a superficial understanding can be found.

another author! i'm telling you... this site has more authors on it that i can shake a stick at! what is the name of your book?

But, we can do an exercise to get direct experience of our sleeping consciousness. Go out for a walk, or "go and clean your bowl," and consciously experience everything around you, observe your being within the body and the environment surrounding the body. Then, when you are done, do a retrospective exercise. See how much you can remember. If someone can go five minutes in conscious observation of life, without fault, without dream (psychological wanderings), then they are well above average.

So, I would say about 97% of our consciousness is sleeping. Just about all of it.

depending on the quality of my practice... i can maintain this aware state for quite awhile.. i'm really not able to measure it since there are no chronometers where i sit. the interesting thing is, of course, that i can remember every single bit of it from every single time of it... however... the experience and how my perceptions are activated during that time are beyond my ability to express. even saying something like... i was wearing a blue robe is, essentially, a nonsenscial statement from the awakened point of view and conveys nothing to the listener.

now... speaking of dreaming... this is a strange phenomena to be sure. i've actually engaged in a specific practice to stop dreaming when i sleep during the night. i've been very successful, in the main, in that effort... though i still will have dreams... especially if there has been some type of emotional incident that is tied to the dream event.

[neoxenos]

Hello,

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste neoxenos,
well... this is simply amazing, from the Buddhist point of view at least. in our tradition, full recollection of ones past lives is only attained when you reach the 10th level of consciousness and are, effectively an Effect Stage Buddha. normal medatition, even through vastly advanced practices such as Annutara Yoga, which is a tantric practice, are incapable of achieving this. your meditational abilities could be truly staggering.... perhpas... you should considering exploring this aspect of your being more fully, you could be of great benefit to all sentient beings.

I just meant by success that I was able to recover early memories of this life, nothing of previous lives though. I am nothing more than a ignorant who is beginning to understand his own ignorance.

hmm... whilst this is true to a certain extent, it's certainly not the case for all. are you familiar with a term called "multi tasking" from the computer field? this is a term that is used to mean that more than one task is being done in parallel, even though only one task is being displayed to the screen. our brains work somewhat like this... of course, they aren't bivalent systems.. they are multivalent.. but that's conversation for another thread

I know what you mean, and I think the Enlightened one is able to do many things at once perfectly and being aware of that fact, while we have trouble even doing thing while being aware of it. When we begin to psychologically wander, we mostly are unaware of it. That is the problem, there is a lack of observation. We need to observe ourselves if we wish to understand ourselves.

the Buddhist tradition.. and this is why my summation of my religion is like it is... is about being fully and completely present and aware in this very moment... and methodologies for accomplishing that... not only that... but once accomplished... for maintaining it in perpetuity.

I agree.

interesting... we, Buddhists that is, would have a different take on this... though we'd agree in principle with your statement, i would think. we'd say, by contrast, that all sentient beings are awake by nature.. that is your essence, however, your essence has been obscured by all manner of defilements. to think that awakening is beyond your nature is to place it outside yourself and that is delusion.

Right. I have a likeing towards the following: your essence is happy in its perfection but does not know its perfection, and happiness without cognizance of that happiness is not true happiness.

another author! i'm telling you... this site has more authors on it that i can shake a stick at! what is the name of your book?

I am a self proclaimed one, anyway. I do not claim to be very good at it... but I found myself writing huge posts on message boards like this and decieded to take it to the next level as they say. It is called, "A Pragmatic Reevalution: Life, Religion, and Sexuality."

Best Regards,
Steve

[Vajradhara]

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by neoxenos

I just meant by success that I was able to recover early memories of this life, nothing of previous lives though. I am nothing more than a ignorant who is beginning to understand his own ignorance.

doh! never mind... i just re-read what you typed... it was my own reading incomprehension that led me to think you had recovered your past lives memory... sorry about that... perhaps, i should slow down a bit when i read...

I know what you mean, and I think the Enlightened one is able to do many things at once perfectly and being aware of that fact, while we have trouble even doing thing while being aware of it. When we begin to psychologically wander, we mostly are unaware of it. That is the problem, there is a lack of observation. We need to observe ourselves if we wish to understand ourselves.

indeed one of my favorite expressions of Buddhism is thus:

"To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to drop off our own body and mind, and to drop off the bodies and minds of others. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

~Dogen

I am a self proclaimed one, anyway. I do not claim to be very good at it... but I found myself writing huge posts on message boards like this and decieded to take it to the next level as they say. It is called, "A Pragmatic Reevalution: Life, Religion, and Sexuality."

Best Regards,
Steve

have you had the material published yet or do you have it blogged online somewhere? i'd be pleased to read some of your writing.

[neoxenos]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.


doh! never mind... i just re-read what you typed... it was my own reading incomprehension that led me to think you had recovered your past lives memory... sorry about that... perhaps, i should slow down a bit when i read...


indeed one of my favorite expressions of Buddhism is thus:

"To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to drop off our own body and mind, and to drop off the bodies and minds of others. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

~Dogen


have you had the material published yet or do you have it blogged online somewhere? i'd be pleased to read some of your writing.

Yes, it is entirely free:
http://neoxenos.com/reevaluation/

Regards,
Steve

[granni]

a fine good day, ladies and gentlemen.....

****
re:

John (9:2-4) reports that the disciples asked Jesus whether a blindman had sinned or his parents that he had been born blind. Jesus replied that it was in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man, that is, that the law of cause and effect might be fulfilled. Or, as St. Paul phrased the thought: we reap what we sow. The blind man could not have sown the seeds of his blindness in his present body, but must have done so in a previous lifetime.

****

i disagree with the theory that Jesus' response inferred cause and effect as in a karmaic fulfillment.

note: in order that the works of God may be made manifest in the blind man

i've always seen that sentence as exactly that: the works of God be made manifest.

the miracle of Jesus healing the man's blindness could not occur if the man had been born with sight. ie., there'd have been no miracle for the masses to speak of. it would not have occurred. so, the man was born blind for the express purpose of a day in his future when his path would cross that of a man named Jesus, and that Jesus would 'cure' his blindness. Hence the works of God made manifest.

The lines in John 9 ask if this is because of karma/reincarnation/prior life/sin....and Jesus' answer is: "no."

that the people/the disciples believed in reincarnation and karma is presented as a given, therefore they (naturally) asked the question.

consider also, that as Jesus had been sent to this life, in that specific time frame...... it's not that far a reach to think of others also being sent (to life as we know it) in that same time frame, for the express purpose of contributing to what Jesus was to accomplish.


as in some of the other posts on this board: to become aware is to be able to not only notice all details, but to ably recall them with ease. and in that recalling is noticed that there is nothing.... insignificant.

so it is with the birth and life of the blind man. he certainly is not insignificant. yet none really noticed until that moment. and here we are 2000+ years later.... still wondering about his existance and purpose.

i can jes hear it now,
"Hey! Jesus! See?! I told ya that I'd be remembered!"
"Yes. That's true. You are remembered. But, remember also, it was me who put the mud in yer eyes."
as they high-five and say, "Here's to a job well done."
and God smiles, "But, we got 'em talkin........"

granni


[Admin edit: parsed the HTML characters into HTML code. ]

[tarakananda]

For a scholarly and interesting article on Reincarnation in the Christianity, see: Link deleted for Site Rules purposes.

[Bandit]

there was a good story on this on ABC awhile back if you did not catch it. i dont think it was fabricated either. the parents of this boy are bible believers in which they did not believe it is possible, but later reconciled with that.


http://www.ycsi.net/users/reversespi...carnation.html


i dont see it as a doctrine or absolute, but a possibility for some & that there would be a purpose in it, not just a repeated never ending cycle. i am more inclined to hear someones experience than to judge or make a notion that things do not happen. the things in spirit can only be proven, in spirit.

i do have one thought on it though, it seems to me that if and/or when this happens, at some point the soul would remember.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i dont see it as a doctrine or absolute, but a possibility for some & that there would be a purpose in it, not just a repeated never ending cycle. i am more inclined to hear someones experience than to judge or make a notion that things do not happen. the things in spirit can only be proven, in spirit.

i do have one thought on it though, it seems to me that if and/or when this happens, at some point the soul would remember.

I agree with you, Bandit. I came to the conclusion that reincarnation happens at least some of the time because I myself have memories. I won't get into that, but I will say to read the Buddhist view of all this is fascinating. My own memories and strong opinions about life based on them began when I was very young, and I've never meditated with the intent of receiving them. They just come to me at times, and mostly they are like normal memories- vague remembrances of who I was, where I was, lifeways- though a few are very detailed. I have certain skills (unfortunately, nothing all that marketable ) that I picked up exceedingly easily and felt like I was "remembering" how to do it rather than learning it like the other stuff I do.

At any rate, this experience, while still following Christ since the time I was a child and reading scripture, resulted in reconciling the two eventually and coming to the conclusion that some of us, at least, go 'round more than once. I also believe transmigration is possible, as crazy as that seems to most Christians. But there you have it. You deal with what you're given the best you can, right?

I don't really perceive reincarnation as automatic. Like you're saying Bandit, I think there's reasons for reincarnated beings and that not everyone does this, or at least they don't do it in the same fashion and for the same reasons. I think it is a God-guided process, as in, God tells someone they can learn more, or need to learn more. Or God asks someone to incarnate again to help others. Maybe some people just like occasionally popping back into physical reality again, and God is supportive- I don't know.

The dream thing is interesting. I'd never think to try to not dream. I've had control over my dreams since I was about five years old and so my conscious mind is awake when I dream. I typically, in dream, am split into two- my conscious watches my subconscious come up with ideas and play them out. If I don't like what's going on, or am bored, I just change things for my subconscious "me" that's in the dream. I experience both perspectives simultaneously normally, except in visionary dreams in which I switch to a single perspective- but they come with certain "markers" in the dream and generally a sort of OBE thing. Alternatively, when I'm inspired or have a lot of work to do, I sometimes don't dream, but rather consciously think and work on writing in my head. My body is asleep (I am typically conscious as I enter the sleeping state, unless I'm really tired), but my mind has composed poetry and worked on research papers during this time. Then I wake up and write it down in the morning. It typically needs editing, but it does use time relatively efficiently. I don't do it too often, though, because it's not really that restful. I honestly never even thought to try to stop my mind from running during sleep. I like the interesting world of dream, especially since I control my regular dreams. I love that I can fly and such in dream- gives me an opportunity to do stuff that isn't possible in physical reality.

As for what Thomas was discussing, I found it quite interesting, because I've never had a problem thinking all of nature, including my own body, as very good and possessing the immanence of God, even though I strongly feel my spirit/soul is separate and will move on. It isn't "just" a vessel, and certainly isn't evil. It is a temple of God in which I currently dwell, and I'm grateful for the opportunity of learning it provides. What is fascinating to me is that in much of mainstream Christianity (at least in the States these days), there is the belief in the resurrection and yet also the belief that nature and the human body is bad or evil, fallen from grace. Whereas in Druidry, lots of people believe only in reincarnation and yet see nature and the human body as good and of divine origin, a gift from the the god(s). I guess I'm of the Celtic Christian variety (early), that felt the immanence of divinity in all creation. That "breath of life" that animates us imbues us all with the divine spark and makes all of reality, spiritual and physical, entwined and good at heart (though often clouded by wrongdoing). The grace of Christ, instead of imparting to us the first spark of goodness, awakens the goodness that already was our deepest nature... and like a lighthouse parts the fog to guide ships home, parts the darkness of our wrongdoing and sinful choices, leading us back to the light deep within us and thus to our Creator.