Reincarnation in Christianity

The Moral Argument for Reincarnation

The Christian moral argument for the existence of reincarnation is very straightforward. It is as follows:

1. At least some babies will die before baptism. This has always been the case, and would even be every maternity ward had priests standing in every delivery room to baptize every baby upon emergence from the womb, because between 10 and 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.

2. An infant in the womb, or in the first two or three (some say seven) years of life, is incapable of sin.

3. Therefore, there will always be some babies who die in a state of total innocence.

The next part of the argument:

1. Accoreding to the Christian account sinless baby, upon death, may go either to Heaven or to Hell. (There are two other options within Roman Catholicism, which we will come to in due time.)

2. If to Hell, God is a monstrosity, for he has deliberately formed certain lives for no purpose other than to torment them for all time. Such a being is not a "God" but a monstrous demon, and we should pray for its defeat and ultimate repentance.

3. If to Heaven, and if Hell is a possibility for human beings once they become capable of sin, then universal human infanticide becomes a moral imperative. The reason is that eternal Hell is the worst imaginable evil, while Heaven is the greatest possible good. Earthly life is a mixture of good and evil in which evil typically predominates. By universal abortion, we may spare all human beings both of the comparatively moderate evils of Earthly life and the possibility of the greatest possible evil in Hell, while guaranteeing the greatest possible good to all in Heaven.

4. If God has created a situation in which universal infanticide is a moral imperative, then God is not and cannot be good. Such a God is no "God" but a monstrous demon, and we should pray for its defeat and ultimate repentance.

The final part of the argument:

1. The most just solution to the foregoing is simply that infants who die in the womb or in the early years of life are given another chance.

2. God always does what is most just.

3. Therefore, reincarnation exists.

Possible Variations:

1. An unbaptized infant goes not to Hell, but to the Limbus Infantium, a place of maximum natural happiness but deprived of the supernatural happiness which is caused by the beatific vision, which is to say, the vision of God. If this is not as cruel as a Hell of conscious torment, it is still needlessly cruel, as God has necessarily created some human souls which could experience the beatific vision but deprived them of it through no fault of their own. On the other hand, as maximum natural good (Limbo) is still preferable to maximum supernatural evil (Hell), we would still be justified in arguing for universal infanticide. Therefore, this is false.

2. An unbaptized baby goes to Heaven, but only after a sojourn in Purgatory. This is not taught in the tradition as far as I know. This runs into two problems. First, the nature of Purgatory is a mixture of good and evil-- according to the tradition one suffers, but is comforted by the presence of the saints, including the Queen of Heaven herself, and one's own guardian angel, and one's suffering can also be alleviated by the prayers of those on Earth. We may therefore say that, like Earthly life, Purgatory is a mix of good and evil, but that there the good predominates, owing to the direct experience of the saints and angels and the guarantee of Heaven at the end of the line. This therefore also argues for universal infanticide, and is therefore false.

3. Quem di dilligunt, adulescens moritur. This means "Whom the gods love, die young." This is the view that infants who die before baptism are conveyed directly to Heaven, but that the rest of us will also, universally, reach Heaven after a certain period of time which may well include a sojourn in Hell. On this perspective, the loss of a child, while a catastrophe from the perspective of the parent, is a blessing, indeed, a special grace, from the perspective of the child. Unlike the rest of us, who will have to wait an uncertain length of time before achieving Paradise, our lost children have been granted the grace of direct admission into the Kingdom of Heaven, without an earthly sojourn or the risk of temporary Hell. This only works if universal salvation is true, and could still be considered an argument for infanticide. Nevertheless, it is the best alternative.

What Which Cannot Be True

Some Christian saints have taught that "Even martyrdom is not enough to wash away the stain of heresy." That is to say, even if one loves Christ enough to die for Him, one will still be tormented in Hell for all of time if one happens to have gotten some of the details of his biography wrong. In many cases, the options on offer are equally plausible, and sometimes require specialized knowledge of ancient and medieval philosophy to even tell apart. Does homoiousios make more sense to you then homoousios? How about qui ex Patri filioque procedit? Into the fire with you! This bit of nonsense, unfortunately still preached by many, is contradicted by the following argument:

1. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Therefore, one who accepts martyrdom out of love has fulfilled the first and great commandment. (He said nothing at all about prefering homoousia to homoiousia.)