Messages

quote:Originally posted by fallnangel77

No offense but it seems to me rather arrogant to think that everything was created for humans.

I understand how it can seem arrogant, if you haven't thought it through yet. Is it arrogant to think that every single appliance in a house was made for the owner?
What about the bathtub, surely every  appliance in that house could have been made for the bathtub! Anyway, that's why it's not 'arrogant' to think that nature was designed for souls/intellects/spirits/whatever you call it who only inhabit human bodies.

Why was nature designed and for who? Nobody?

All I can tell you is that I base my views entirely ON LOGIC.

I see.


I think that 'nature' includes all of the animals that perform some function for nature (otherwise there wouldn't be a functioning 'nature' on the planets). You think that nature is also  designed for flies - whose JOB it is to decompose waste etc?

The animals ARE A PART of nature so I don't see how it can be designed FOR them.

(sorry this seems off-topic but it should decide whether human souls  could have possibly been in animals once)

Could I ask how you arrived at your conclusions? First-hand spiritual experience? Logic? Guess?

Sorry i misinterpreted what you said, I guess it was because you asked what would happen if the human race became extinct. Anyway...

I don't know how you came to your conclusions, but logic has proven to me that nature WAS designed for our souls to appreciate, study and learn from. Since you 'believe' in reincarnation I assume that you think there is a creator who established this system and the universe. Would the creator create nature for no reason?

I have the answer to all of your questions but if I answer them, you would (rightly) ask how I KNOW all of this. So I won't say anymore and just recommend that you try reading The Freedom of Choice (its free). www.thefreedomofchoice.com

Do you think it's a good idea to use 'machines' or external means to have oobes? I'm trying to develop the abilities of my mind/spirit by doing it myself. My opinion is that the more we use things like this, the more dependent we become on external gadgets as opposed to becoming more "in-control" of natural things like oobes, awareness 'levels', brain frequencies etc.




www.thefreedomofchoice.com

Good question. What do you define nature as? If you think humans are just another animal part of nature, then perhaps the souls of humans were once animals. However, if you think that nature was DESIGNED for US, then it's likely that humans stay human, and the animals - who all have a role to play in nature - ARE nature. You seem to think that Earth is the only planet with life on it, or you define aliens as 'other types of creatures'. Even 'modern science' and their theories of 'chance' agree that statistically there is bound to be life on many, many other planets.


www.thefreedomofchoice.com - this book pretty much answers everything anyway.

wow that was you?! I remember that one. By the way the link to the forums is http://www.bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/forum/forum.html

I just want to say that the book "The Freedom of Choice" is, in my opinion, the BEST book ever written (on this planet). I have spent 1 year verifying, questioning, pondering, attempting to criticize and completely adoring this book. The logic is practically FLAWLESS.


Some people were criticizing the logic earlier in this topic. I think EVERY problem you had with the logic, I've had at some point in the past year. What I did was, I thought hard about it, asked the author questions and FOUND MY ANSWER. The amazing thing is, when I re-read the book, I noticed that the book ALREADY STATED THE ANSWER TO MY PROBLEM, every time. I've said "How could I miss that!" so many times.


So, I recommend that EVERYONE read/re-read this book. Also; Instead of finding a problem... assuming you're right... and then dismissing the book, I really hope you try to get the problem 'resolved', it really is worth it.



- at least that is what I think at my current level of understanding. []

Meedan