Buddism considers life as suffering, and only by suffering you can finally be enlightened.

In some way they consider life an illusion, but i never read anything that put it in the same way you do. I'm genuine curious about what books or articles you read, and i want to read them to see your point for it is very interesting.

That makes it so hard, when i am talking about Christianity i am talking about Christianity, it is impossible to take every small offspring from Christianity into account. And the opinion of John and Jane Doe does not matter in the big picture of approx 1.3 Billion Christian believers.

I understand your point but what you are doing now is instead of using the words good and bad you use the (Christian) terms of Heaven (good) and Hell (bad). If we change heaven in good and hell in bad the whole thing makes more sense, don't you think?

Didymos Thomas, you are not understanding because of the logic you use.

Are you familiar with the types, shadows and parables of the bible? They don't always mean literally what they say. Systems of valid reasoning and logic have no place in "knowing."

Soon, like discoveries in electricity, people will eventually accept more modern approaches of doing things or be left in the dark. This is where we may differ, and we can probably see no need to go any further.

While I do not like to talk about enlightenment, suffering I do not think is the path to enlightenment, nor have I ever read such a thing in Buddhist literature. Buddhists say life is suffering because living, and the illusion of "you living" (a static self), is the root of suffering. As "self" is illusory, and "self" is the root of suffering, suffering is also illusory.

Enlightenment is something akin to realizing your true nature, not the result of suffering from which we learn.

I'd recomend Robert Thruman's Inner Revolution as a general introduction to Buddhism and Buddhist thought.

Sure. If we talk about christianity in very general terms, reincarnation is an oddity among beliefs, and probably very little influence over the whole of the Christian population.

No, because heaven and hell are allegories for our very lives. By living with compassion, kindness, ect, your life is a "heaven", by living with hate, and with concern only for yourself, your life is a "hell".

We do not need to use "heaven" and "hell", but they seem to be quite powerful from a literary perspective.

I think we could incorporate the allegories of heaven and hell into our conception of reincarnation - heaven represents life with "good" karma, hell life with "bad" karma.

The reason for quotations around good and bad is that to talk about karma in terms of good and bad is an oversimplification, however, often useful in cases such as our conversation thus far. The concept of karma is a complex one, one that I'm not sure I understand entirely.

You might very well be correct, which is why I am hoping you will explain your logic.

Yes, I am familiar with the Bible. There are a great many threads on this forum that demonstrate my knowledge and thoughts on Christian scripture. We are both in agreement that the text should not be approached as literal truth.

However, I must object to the idea that valid reasoning has no use here. With respect to "knowing" something, I would suggest knowledge is empirical. The use of valid reasoning is when we begin to discuss what we "know" so that we might understand one another.

Go further? We haven't gone anywhere. I'd like to "go further" because I am interested in your views on the matter.

While I do understand your logic, the term "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is commonly used to describe "the law" of the OT.

Would you care to share what it is you believe about reincarnation?

What is there to believe? Everything that has, does, and will comprise that which is called "me" has been and will one day be something else.

The law of karma is for those still under law - "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."

You're welcome.

So, how is 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' for someone under the old law, and not for those who follow Christ?

Late last year (i think is was around the 5th of December) I had to supervise the students that are a level below me. This was all part of an "exercise" and i was supervised by a teacher. This teacher happened to be my English teacher who had an extraordinary theory (which is followed by many others) it goes like this:

The entire universe has been filled with a mass that we know as atoms/particles. All these particles are interconnected with each other and also have a lot of energy. According to him studies had proven that one particle can fulfill the earths need for power for eternity. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. The interconnection does, for each particle can connect to another trough an unlimited number of ways. Every particle contains information that can (re)create an event.

In this way if all particles are set the way they were 2000 years ago we would go back 2000 years. This also means we don't exist because we were not there 2000 years ago. Of course this will not happen, and in my opinion cannot happen. What is interesting is that you can use this theory to explain a lot of "mysterious" things like telekinetic.

Taken in the event of reincarnation it is possible that you are build from old building block that happened to be you thousands of years ago. I find this complex and almost impossible, but if there are higher forces like souls, it might be a group of "special" particles that recollect everything you have done from the moment you were born first, till this day (and beyond).

I'm a bit puzzled myself too now, maybe someone else sees some fatal flaw in this theory or likes to expand it to better match the question.

If you've ever heard of "Noah's Ark" . . . this is a type of Christ. Think.