How many of you believe in God?

[Mustardseed]

Gandalf I would like to hear you refute or explain Exotens quotes about Karma and Reincarnation. These same points have been brought up before but seems always to be ignored. Karma and reincarnation really is questionable, yet it seems to be the cornerstone in most Neag's beliefsystems (I thought we could coin another word for NewAgers seeing we have become Fundis)[]. Even Robert Bruce brings this up in a very interesting article.

I am listening!!Any other Neags who wanna give that one a shot??

Regards Mustardseed

[WalkerInTheWoods]

I find Exothen's quotes about Karma and Reincarnation to be rather foolish and express a lack of willingness to even try to grasp their concepts. I do not believe in reincarnation, atleast not as most people do. What I do not understand is how the conclusion is made that if time were infinite then all souls would be perfect by now. What? Infinite means without end, meaning time still exists and thus we still exist. We are in the process of infinity, not outside of it. It also implies that there is a finite number of souls. If time is infinite then souls are infinite. From a Christian point of view, do you not believe that God is infinite? If so, why not his creation? Would there not be an infinite number of souls to match his infinity? And why not time? And why would reincarnation be so hard to grasp from a Christian point of view? If the Christian God is as great as people say, a loving, merciful God and that God is infinite, then why would he not wish to allow those he loves infinite time to reach the perfection he desires?

It is my understanding from experience that Karma is not about right and wrong, good and evil. It is merely a reaction to an action. Put simply, if you hit someone you will most likely be hit back. If you hug someone, sharing love, you will recieve a warm loving hug in return. Now it can and usually works more indirectly, but it is basicly like the concept of you reap what you sow.

[exothen]

bomohwkl,

quote:Why do we NEED to believe or know that God exist? Why do we NEED God?

Why indeed. Depends on what you mean by 'why do we need God;' God just is, whether we feel we need him or not. In one sense, we need to believe he exists because everything around us screams that he does exist. We need to find out who he is, what our relationship is to him, how he has communicated to us, and what he expects of us.

Or, in another sense, the world is in desperate need of God, a savior, a Messiah; someone to bring peace and put an end to injustices. I would suggest that if anyone can look at the world and think everything is okay, that that person is not looking at the same world I am, they are out of touch with reality.

quote:What is your motives for getting closer to God? To make HIM happy? Or because you FEAR that you will burn in Hell?

My motives are based on the fact that he loved me enough to create me and has given me a purpose for my life and I want to fulfill that purpose. I love him because of who he is.

fallenangel77,

quote:I find Exothen's quotes about Karma and Reincarnation to be rather foolish and express a lack of willingness to even try to grasp their concepts.

Then please, enlighten me if I am wrong instead of just stating it. Here is what I believe karma is: the ethical and physical consequences of human actions, which also affect future existences (Hinduism, TM & Hare Krishna, J. Isamu Yamamoto).

quote: What I do not understand is how the conclusion is made that if time were infinite then all souls would be perfect by now. What? Infinite means without end, meaning time still exists and thus we still exist. We are in the process of infinity, not outside of it.

If time were infinite, that means infinite into the past as well. But if we are still here trying to progress through an already infinite amount of time, then obviously we should have been perfect already.

quote: It also implies that there is a finite number of souls. If time is infinite then souls are infinite.

But that's the point: time is not infinite. Time is a subset that came into being within infinity. Science proves this and the Bible correctly stated it 3000 years ago. Time is not infinite, it came into being with the creation of the universe. I don't think your conclusion follows from your premises. You would have to prove some correlation between time and the number of souls.

quote: From a Christian point of view, do you not believe that God is infinite? If so, why not his creation?

Yes, God is infinite. You answered your second question yourself. A 'creation' is something that is created by someone else and implies that it came into being at a point in time. How can a 'creation' be infinite? It wouldn't be a creation if it existed for eternity.

quote: And why would reincarnation be so hard to grasp from a Christian point of view?

Because as I have shown, it is irrational and illogical.

quote:Now it can and usually works more indirectly, but it is basicly like the concept of you reap what you sow.

Does that not imply good and evil, right and wrong? But you have made the point I was making - good and evil become blended so as to not exist with a karmaic belief system. So why should people get punished for something that is not wrong or rewarded for something that is not right?

[Mustardseed]

I find you to be evasive. Please answer the following observations in point form. This would only be fair to ask. Exothen is challenging your beliefs and asking questions, if you do not want to concede to him being right you should answer. No emotional outbursts , no commenting on him or his lack of willingness. Just the facts. I am very interested in hearing your replies.

To make it easier I have copied part of the post (hope you dont mind Exothen)

1. Moral argument: in pantheism "there is no source for the moral standards that karma enforces." Since there is no ultimate difference between good and evil, all morality becomes relative. But if nothing is right or wrong, then "karma has no business punishing anyone for it."

2. Social argument: if we have had hundreds, or more, chances to improve over millions of years, we should have made moral progress, but there is no evidence of that. As an aside, morality has to be absolute in order to even draw a comparison, otherwise, to what standard is one comparing?

3. Problem of Evil and Infinite Regress: "if suffering in this life always results from evil done in a previous life, then there would have to be an infinite regress of past lives. But an infinite regress in time is not possible, since if there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come." Since today has come, there has not been an infinite number of past lives. And, of course, science tells us that time isn't eternal.

"On the other hand, if there were not an infinite number of lives before this one, then there must have been a first life in which a previous incarnation was not the cause of its evil."

4. Problem of Infinite Time and Lack of Perfection: "In an infinite amount of moments there is more than enough time to achieve the perfection of all souls which reincarnation is designed to do. In short, all souls hould have achieved oneness with God by now, if there had been an infinite amount of time to do so. But they have not. Hence, reincarnation has failed as a solution to the problem of evil."


What say ye!!

[onefromsomewhereelse]

Gand,

It is our fault we go to hell; God created us, the original Adam & Eve, with the only free wills ever.  They had the ability to never sin, but they did.  Why did He create them this way?  He didn't want robotic humans; He gave us all, which includes the ability to sin.  They did, and we inherit the penalty of sin, and add more sin to the total every day.

We get what we deserve, except for those who God graciously predestined/saved from an eternity in Hell.  These are the born again ones...why are they called "born again"?  Because one is completely passive in birth....not of our works.

I know for many, the idea that God did it all is repulsing, hurting the pride, but that's the natural way to see things.  When you see it from God's side, it is the ultimate gift.

Everyone gets what they want....those who hate God, well, they won't have to be around him eternally, so I'm sure they are pleased.  The opposite is also true.  Kind of neat, isn't it?

[kakkarot]

what would be the point of being born into a reality where you have already been judged and are already going to hell? what then is the point of living?

better question, where then is the supposed mercy for ALL mankind? did jesus die on the cross for only a few? why would God choose only the ones that He does since we are all sinners and none are more deserving of being saved than others?

i truly don't understand your thinking onefromsomewhereelse [|)]. oh well.

~kakkarot

[xander]

quote:Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
[It is our fault we go to hell;

Your bible says to "Love thy neighbor as yourse;f". It would appear that you do. You loathe unbeleivers because you loathe yourself and despretly seek for yourself the very punishment you claim god puts upon unbeleivers.

You also claim that we do it to ourselves....this is a phrase used by all manner of criminals who desire to blame the victim and absolve themselves of all guilt.

Xander

[WalkerInTheWoods]

quote: I find you to be evasive.

Who are you talking to? If me, I am far from being evasive, unless by evasive you mean that I will not whole heartly accept your point of view then yes I am being evasive. lol

quote:Exothen is challenging your beliefs and asking questions, if you do not want to concede to him being right you should answer.

Is this your and exothen's purpose, Musterseed. To be right? No one can prove to be right or wrong, because everything relies upon opinion and beliefs. There are no facts on this. If you two wish to discuss, that is great. If you wish to prove yourself right and those that disagree with you wrong, well that is never going to happen, atleast in this life time. []

quote:Then please, enlighten me if I am wrong instead of just stating it.

I did. lol

quote:If time were infinite, that means infinite into the past as well. But if we are still here trying to progress through an already infinite amount of time, then obviously we should have been perfect already.

I see the problem. You are trying to put your beliefs into a part of another belief without trying to see how the two could fit together.

Let us say that time is infinite. If it is infinite then your view of finite souls does not work. It would have to be a cycle. The way I see it there is the source, we will call it God for your sake. Souls flow out of God infinitely, come to Earth, then flow back to God. It is an unending cycle.

quote:You would have to prove some correlation between time and the number of souls.

But you do not?

quote:Yes, God is infinite. You answered your second question yourself. A 'creation' is something that is created by someone else and implies that it came into being at a point in time. How can a 'creation' be infinite? It wouldn't be a creation if it existed for eternity.

If God is infinite, why can he not create something that is infinite? You are thinking in linear terms. An entity that is infinite would not be linear and could create things that are not linear as well.

quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why would reincarnation be so hard to grasp from a Christian point of view?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because as I have shown, it is irrational and illogical.

I do not see where you have shown this. How is it irrational and illogical for God to give souls as long as they need to return to him?

quote:Does that not imply good and evil, right and wrong? But you have made the point I was making - good and evil become blended so as to not exist with a karmaic belief system. So why should people get punished for something that is not wrong or rewarded for something that is not right?

It is not about right and wrong, though you can view it that way. It is more about what is productive and destructive. As from my example, you hit someone they hit you back, if a person likes fighting they are not being punished. Punishment is only point of view. We lean towards those things we like, and not everyone likes the same thing.

quote:1. Moral argument: in pantheism "there is no source for the moral standards that karma enforces." Since there is no ultimate difference between good and evil, all morality becomes relative. But if nothing is right or wrong, then "karma has no business punishing anyone for it."

As I stated it is not about punishment. It is about experience. It is about learning. You hit someone, they hit you back. If you like the pain and fighting you may do it again. If you do not then you will not do it again. It is about learning.

quote:2. Social argument: if we have had hundreds, or more, chances to improve over millions of years, we should have made moral progress, but there is no evidence of that. As an aside, morality has to be absolute in order to even draw a comparison, otherwise, to what standard is one comparing?

This goes off the assumption that everyone existed at the beginning of a finite time. And then was given time to follow a certain path. But if not everyone was present millions of years ago as individual souls then they all are on a different time scale. Some souls can be incarnating here for the first time. And who is to say what the purpose is? Does it have to be a Christian morality? What if all are just here to learn and experience?

quote:3. Problem of Evil and Infinite Regress: "if suffering in this life always results from evil done in a previous life, then there would have to be an infinite regress of past lives. But an infinite regress in time is not possible, since if there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come." Since today has come, there has not been an infinite number of past lives. And, of course, science tells us that time isn't eternal.

"On the other hand, if there were not an infinite number of lives before this one, then there must have been a first life in which a previous incarnation was not the cause of its evil."

I do not think that suffering comes from evil, as I do not believe in evil. So I will not comment on that. What I do not understand is this statement: "since if there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come." If time is infinite then there is also infinite number of days after today. Today is within time. Saying that infinite time does not exist because today exists is illogical.

quote:4. Problem of Infinite Time and Lack of Perfection: "In an infinite amount of moments there is more than enough time to achieve the perfection of all souls which reincarnation is designed to do. In short, all souls hould have achieved oneness with God by now, if there had been an infinite amount of time to do so. But they have not. Hence, reincarnation has failed as a solution to the problem of evil."

Reincarnation is not a solution to evil. Evil is reletive. As I stated above infinite time is possible if the process of the soul is a cycle. You are stating it is linear. Viewing it as linear then no it is not possible to be infinite. But as a cycle it is possible.

[bomohwkl]

exothen said,

"God just is, whether we feel we need him or not."

Having the mentality of just is is more dangerous than exploding an atomic bomb with your bare hands. It is because you have no sufficient curiousty to understand God. You take everything as just is without discovering the reasons.

"we need to believe he exists because everything around us screams that he does exist"

How do you prove that God exists? Please don't refer the Bible. Use your own reasoning. Can you? Prove to yourself to the point that you NO NEED to BELIEVE.
What happen if you adopt the mentality of believing rather than understanding and knowing?
Could you be able to know the answer of 101+101 if you believe that 1+1=2 (or worst still believing that 1+1=3)?


" someone to bring peace and put an end to injustices"

What is the point in bringing PEACE since we don't APPRECIAT peace itself?
Why should someone 'magically' heal your illness since yourself don't APPRECIATE the prefect health?
Thousands of police can be deployed to FORCE peace into an intrinsically violent community, what happen when the police are gone?

There is an interesting sayings from Tom Chalko,
"Do you want to save Earth? For WHOM? For those who do not care? For those whose ultimate dream is to win the lottery in order to do nothing, NOT EVEN THINK? For those whose favourite activity is to intoxicate and entertain themselves in order to FORGET Reality? For those who are ready to kill or spend their lives fighting for a piece of land or property? For those who allow their minds to become cluttered with doctrines, misinformation and deceit? For those who prefer to cultivate animal instincts rather than intellect? "


"My motives are based on the fact that he loved me enough to create me."

Can you prove by yourself that you are created because of God's love by your own reasoning as if you don't have a Bible?

"has given me a purpose for my life and I want to fulfill that purpose"

Can you prove by yourself the purposes of your creation? Why do you FEEL the NEED to fufill that purpose? What is the reasons that you are created? For what purpose does it serve to God?

"I love him because of who he is"
Who is God? Can you quantify God qualities by your own observation and reasoning? If someone is extremely intelligent, would he create something complex without a purpose?

[Gandalf]

Fallenangel has already covered some of these but here is my input.

At the core of the apologetics is the fundamental problem that the writer is too restrictive in his/her conceptions.


1. Moral argument: in pantheism "there is no source for the moral standards that karma enforces." Since there is no ultimate difference between good and evil, all morality becomes relative. But if nothing is right or wrong, then "karma has no business punishing anyone for it."


This stance assumes that karma 'punishes', but most theories of karma are not concerned with 'punishment'. it is about learning through experience. Your view is attempting to perceive this concept through the lens of christian thought, in which 'divine punishment' is central. However, in many branches of reincarnation belief, concepts of punishment, sin and evil are not present. The underlying purpose of physical existence is to learn. Part of that learning curve is about learning to love other people; all spiritual beliefs hold love as the most important goal. However, those who have not learned this are not 'evil'; they are just ignorant.
What is important is learning. Often the only proper way to learn is by realising consequenses of actions from 'the other side', you then learn from this and will act with more wisdom in future.

2. Social argument: if we have had hundreds, or more, chances to improve over millions of years, we should have made moral progress, but there is no evidence of that. As an aside, morality has to be absolute in order to even draw a comparison, otherwise, to what standard is one comparing?

This argument is making an assumption that 'we' are the same 'we' that was around at the begining of human history. Actually, most reincarnation beliefs are centred around the idea that people come here on a constant basis, learn and grow and then move on to other realms of existence. The purpose of learning is the overriding reason for being here, the 'moral basis' if you want to refer to it as that; Part of that learning process is to learn to love other people. Therefor, at any given time there may be a whole mixture of people at widely varying levels of development, and possible from different backgrounds. For some people here, this might be their last visit to Human life. Therefor, it is not the case that human society is going to be any more 'morally advanced' than in the past (although as an aside, I think we have made progress, thanks to the 18thC Enlightenment and secular ethics, but this is imo).

Secondly, you have stated that morality may be absolute. But what do we mean by 'morality'. This does not nececerely mean a polarisation of good/evil, right/wrong. There may be a fundamental 'goal' of existence that promotes learning as the ultimate aim. Part of this learning curve is to love other people as love is the 'prime energy'. However, those who are ignorant of this are not nececerely 'evil' as such, they are exercising their free will choices and these people will change as they learn. Their lack of love and regard for their fellow humans is simply a reflection of their ignorance, which they will themselves overcome given experience. This is where christian doctrine differs, as it does not allow the time for this to happen, only a single lifetime, which seen in its proper perspective is only a blimp!



3. Problem of Evil and Infinite Regress: "if suffering in this life always results from evil done in a previous life, then there would have to be an infinite regress of past lives. But an infinite regress in time is not possible, since if there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come." Since today has come, there has not been an infinite number of past lives. And, of course, science tells us that time isn't eternal.
"On the other hand, if there were not an infinite number of lives before this one, then there must have been a first life in which a previous incarnation was not the cause of its evil."

This assumption is based on an a priori notion that reincarnation is linear in form, and in fact this may not be the case. Monroe and RB are two 'astral explorers' who have come to the conclusion that it is not; Monroe had grounds to think that there may have been two of 'him' on earth while he was writing, for example.

It may also not be the case that 'suffering in this life' is due to events in a previous one. It may be the case that those people who have caused others pain in the past may return in order to see what it is like in reciept; again not nececerely 'punishment', more a learning curve.
Others may choose a hard life this time around purely for the learning oppertunities it presents, not because of any actions in the past.


4. Problem of Infinite Time and Lack of Perfection: "In an infinite amount of moments there is more than enough time to achieve the perfection of all souls which reincarnation is designed to do. In short, all souls hould have achieved oneness with God by now, if there had been an infinite amount of time to do so. But they have not. Hence, reincarnation has failed as a solution to the problem of evil."



Firstly, This view supposes that there is a finite amount of souls. However, god is deemed to be infinite and many notions of reinarnation view all life as 'sparks' of god who continually split off and begin a long cycle of learning and growth before they eventially rejoin with the the whole again. The purpose of this is so that god can grow, and we all get to 'become' god in the end. This process has no end that we can perceive and there are new souls appearing all the time. Remember also that reincarnation does not restrict itself to this world but may also apply to all the other worlds of the universe and possible realities that exist outside of it. Earth may well be just one speck of dust in the big picture.

Secondly, the concept of 'evil' is not a universal one; It may be the case that 'evil' is relative and has no meaning outside of human constructs. Therefore there is no longer any 'problem of evil' to solve. It may be that due to our vastly limited view of the greater reality, we are in no position to know the ultimate purpose and outcome behind events and actions; all categories of 'good/evil, good/bad etc, are relative. As Monroe says 'in Zero gravity there is no up and down'.

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

quote:At the core of the apologetics is the fundamental problem that the writer is too restrictive in his/her conceptions.

your viewpoint only. Neither of us all know how restrictive or not restrictive these rules are, right. This is a educated guessing session, isn't it or are you elevating it to a teaching session[]None of us KNOW.

quote:This stance assumes that karma 'punishes', but most theories of karma are not concerned with 'punishment'.

Are you saying most, meaning that there are many of them?. If so what is most. Is one view held by 1 billion people only counted 1 and the different versions held by each AP member counts  say 200. This makes no sense. We are talking about Reincarnation as practiced and believed by the vast multitude of Hindus and Buddhists in the world. Pick a number[]its in the Billions. If you make minisqule changes and say you have a "different approach and belief" where are your following. There are none. Even RB and Monroe and others are not in agreement but they all guess, and people here dont even believe as they do. People basically accept the theory of reincarnation as a neg vote to Christianity, they would rather live forever and be reincarnated a couple of million times...... Hey whats the Rush.....I will get there in my next reincarnation.

quote: it is about learning through experience. Your view is attempting to perceive this concept through the lens of christian thought, in which 'divine punishment' is central.

This is an assumption. You first do not know what is central to us nor what is central to the Bible. The Gospel is the GOOD NEWS that God who is love loves us and send his Son and he loves us too. This is the central tenant of the Bible.

quote:However, in many branches of reincarnation belief, concepts of punishment, sin and evil are not present.
What is important is learning. Often the only proper way to learn is by realising consequenses of actions from 'the other side', you then learn from this and will act with more wisdom in future.

Ok we get closer in defining then. This is what we call punishment we call it that becourse discipline = training to us and we accept "punishment" which in your eyes is bad as a gift of God to teach us lessons. We rejoice in it as  gift of God. Who has the wrong perspectrive is then subjective.

quote:This argument is making an assumption that 'we' are the same 'we' that was around at the begining of human history. Actually, most reincarnation beliefs are centred around the idea that people come here on a constant basis, learn and grow and then move on to other realms of existence. The purpose of learning is the overriding reason for being here, the 'moral basis' if you want to refer to it as that; Part of that learning process is to learn to love other people. Therefor, at any given time there may be a whole mixture of people at widely varying levels of development, and possible from different backgrounds. For some people here, this might be their last visit to Human life. Therefor, it is not the case that human society is going to be any more 'morally advanced' than in the past (although as an aside, I think we have made progress, thanks to the 18thC Enlightenment and secular ethics, but this is imo).

This makes no sense Douglas. Come now. If this is the case and people stop coming here as they attain enlightenment and there should be no enlightened folks here.!!!!

If there are enlightened folks present here, i.e. Robert Bruce Moen,yourself? Buddha etc it would mean that it is possible to be enlightened here. If this is possible we should be up to our waist deep in enlightened people all over. Your argument does not hold, so either explain more clearly or re-think.

quote:This assumption is based on an a prior notion that reincarnation is linear in form, and in fact this may not be the case.

This is not how you explained it above. Your above statement was that it was a process, in effect INDEED LINEAR. 2+2=4 notice the line[]

You cannot have it both ways. I also read RBs article and found it very very interesting but this is NOT anywhere near to being considered mainstream Reincarnation belief. Nowhere near.

quote:It may also not be the case that 'suffering in this life' is due to events in a previous one.

your back to linear again.......

quote:It may be the case that those people who have caused others pain in the past may return in order to see what it is like in reciept; again not nececerely 'punishment', more a learning curve.
Others may choose a hard life this time around purely for the learning oppertunities it presents, not because of any actions in the past.

and back to non linear....more like alternating current []

quote:Firstly, This view supposes that there is a finite amount of souls.

this is generally accepted reincarnation beliefs Douglas. The reason is that we are all a little part of God and since God is infinite the amounts of souls are as well. This is not supposing but simple math 2+2=4

quote:However, god is deemed to be infinite

Oh sorry got confused by your statement above[]

quote:and many notions of reinarnation view all life as 'sparks' of god who continually split off and begin a long cycle of learning and growth before they eventially rejoin with the the whole again. The purpose of this is so that god can grow, and we all get to 'become' god in the end.

If this is the truth we are truly opposed. In my view we never become God, we might get close to Him and so forth But we never become God. This sounds humanistic and is a bit democratic.....hey my turn to be God. Some take this even further than you and say "they are allready God....." and the universe in theirs only....this is the stuf various socially demented folks eat up. You are God you decide you rule. It is ego at its finest.

quote:This process has no end that we can perceive and there are new souls appearing all the time. Remember also that reincarnation does not restrict itself to this world but may also apply to all the other worlds of the universe and possible realities that exist outside of it. Earth may well be just one speck of dust in the big picture.

Sounds very theoretical and very......like the stuf I used to hear round the campfires in my hippie days......wow man I just thought of something heavy...wow....it was like ..well it ...I ...wel it was real heavy...but I forgot cause it was soooo intricate.[]

quote:Secondly, the concept of 'evil' is not a universal one; It may be the case that 'evil' is relative and has no meaning outside of human constructs. Therefore there is no longer any 'problem of evil' to solve. It may be that due to our vastly limited view of the greater reality, we are in no position to know the ultimate purpose and outcome behind events and actions; all categories of 'good/evil, good/bad etc, are relative. As Monroe says 'in Zero gravity there is no up and down'.

I sure hope you are right man, I sincerly do. That would be very nice...however I think not!!!!. I have seen evil in people in govt. and in society at large. I learned about evil before I learned about good Douglas. Even accepted OBE theories count on Demons and very evil creatures.

Very interesting conversation. Thanks for replying. Dont get offended about the little jokes, sometimes these threads get so serious[]

Regards

Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

Bear in mind that the statements below are IMO only:


your viewpoint only. Neither of us all know how restrictive or not restrictive these rules are, right. This is a educated guessing session, isn't it or are you elevating it to a teaching sessionNone of us KNOW

Of course not, it is a discussion. However, the apologist was making blanket statements about conceptions when in fact it is not possible to make such statements. I was pointing this out.
There is no 'standard reincarnation theory' There are the majority MAINSTREAM version with Buddhism and Hinduism but even these vary between each other, there are also the occult and philosophical ones such as neo Platonism, Pythagoreanism and others.
No one stated that we must confine ourselves to only to Hindu of Buddhist mainstream ones. Bear in mind that conceptions *within* these religions ALSO vary and there are many esoteric forms of Buddhism and Hinduism for example. In my view the concept of reincarnation i.e. that we live more than one physical life, has filtered down to us from higher levels but has been grossly simplified by the mainstream religions like Hinduism and so on.

Get past your dogmatic mindset where we must slavishly obey or restrict ourselves to mainstream religion. We are not discussing mainstream religion per say, but the fundamental notion that souls experience more than one physical lifetime.



Are you saying most, meaning that there are many of them?. If so what is most. Is one view held by 1 billion people only counted 1 and the different versions held by each AP member counts say 200. This makes no sense. We are talking about Reincarnation as practiced and believed by the vast multitude of Hindus and Buddhists in the world. Pick a numberits in the Billions. If you make minisqule changes and say you have a "different approach and belief" where are your following. There are none. Even RB and Monroe and others are not in agreement but they all guess, and people here dont even believe as they do. People basically accept the theory of reincarnation as a neg vote to Christianity, they would rather live forever and be reincarnated a couple of million times...... Hey whats the Rush.....I will get there in my next reincarnation.

Sorry Mustardseed, but it nowhere said in this thread that our definition was only restricted to mainstream religions.
It was concerning the whole concept of 'reincarnation' in its broadest sense. As I said, I think the mainstream religions like Mainstream Hinduism contain a simplified notion of reincarnation, but the reality is far more complicated. Unlike you I am not restricted to one set of dogmatic regulations. There are many ideas about reincarnation; yes the majority belong to mainstream religions but this doesn't mean that they are right or wrong or that we should restrict our definition to them; This idea come about as your mindset is restricted to following set beliefs and see the world through dogmatic writings.

This point illustrates I think the most fundamental difference between us Mustardseed, as you seem to be restricted to viewing spiritual matters only through the lens of the various established religions, whereas I am not.

This makes no sense Douglas. Come now. If this is the case and people stop coming here as they attain enlightenment and there should be no enlightened folks here.!!!!

Explain how this 'doesn't make sense'. I would say that you might find there are more enlightened people in the world than you might think. It depends on your definition of 'enlightened'. This is not a single one off process. People do not 'become enlightened' as a one off event: they are on a long leaning curve and we all become MORE enlightened as time goes on. Some stick around to help others, some don't. Others may be here who don't make it their business to go around advertising themselves. They are here for their own reasons and keep to themselves. They are probably NOT the world leaders, or religious leaders, they may be the guy who takes out the trash or works in the mailroom and who is not concerned with 'fixing the world'. You are unaware of them. It is not their intention to 'fix the world' as such, and it may be the case that it is not meant to be 'fixed'. It is the highs and lows of life with all its joy AND suffering which makes it all worthwhile. This is why we are in no position to truly say what is 'good or 'evil'. Rather it might be said that nothing is truly 'evil'. You are making an assumption that all 'more enlightened' people MUST go out and advertise themselves and try to change the world. Perhaps some do, but many others may not.


If there are enlightened folks present here, i.e. Robert Bruce Moen,yourself? Buddha etc it would mean that it is possible to be enlightened here. If this is possible we should be up to our waist deep in enlightened people all over. Your argument does not hold, so either explain more clearly or re-think

Firstly, I would say that most move on fairly quickly, a few stay on for longer, for their own reasons. However the influx of 'new starts means that the more experienced will always be in the minority. However, those who are more experienced might number more than you think.

No one is claiming that Moen, Bruce or others are 'enlightened' in the way that you mean it. I have already said that learning is an eternal process, an end in itself; they are on this curve like everyone else, however I would say that imo they are further along it than many others. You may also be surprised how many more enlightened people there are in the world whom you don't realise; I am not talking about any of us.

Many of these people are not interested in changing the world; This is harsh but it may also be the reality; To understand the value of beauty and love, you may need to experience a lack of it to appreciate it.

Yes even mystics accept that the system is not running as efficiently as it should. If it ran perfectly people would run through the process quickly; I think there would still have to be some suffering in order to provide leaning opportunity and contrast but not to the extent that it has ended up. So there is a problem, a blockage in the system. However, previous attempts to change his have failed. and ended up becoming the distorted established religions that we are familiar with, which contain grains of truth but not the whole truth. So for this reason I believe it entirely possible that individuals like Buddha, Christ Mohammed etc were entirely human but they were attempting to help their fellow humans but their message has been so corrupted that we really have no idea what they really said, and I think that Christ was the worst abused in this case.

So I think that many have decided to leave the system as it is and allow it to take its course, where people eventually go looking for the 'truth' themselves.

A problem with the physical world is that once in the physical you are bound to its rules and to the intellectual limitations of the physical world. This means that even the more 'enlightened' ones are limited to human conceptions for their duration of their stay on earth.

As I said, I think it is physically impossible to properly conceive any kind of absolute 'truth' while limited to physicality, this means that anything they might say, no matter how well it might reflect the 'truth', can be easily argued for or against through the art of rhetoric which as you know can be used to successfully argue for or against any given notion. This means that it is impossible for any spiritual teacher to 'change the world' himself (for the better) Few would argue that the mainstream religions have 'reduced wars or conflict in the world; the opposite is more the case. For this reason, this policy has been abandoned at higher levels imo.




This is not how you explained it above. Your above statement was that it was a process, in effect INDEED LINEAR. 2+2=4 notice the line

You cannot have it both ways. I also read RBs article and found it very very interesting but this is NOT anywhere near to being considered mainstream Reincarnation belief. Nowhere near.


Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding what I am saying about 'linear'.

Linear or sequential to the soul, NOT linear or sequential 'in time'.
The soul exists outside time.
So the soul goes through sequential reincarnations, one after the other, but can do this at various point throughout the timeline.
Physical time only exists in the physical.


sure hope you are right man, I sincerly do. That would be very nice...however I think not!!!!. I have seen evil in people in govt. and in society at large. I learned about evil before I learned about good Douglas. Even accepted OBE theories count on Demons and very evil creatures.

Yes but again I agree that there are things that are 'bad' and 'evil' but only from our perspective. It is relative. As I said, we are in no real position to know what is truly 'good or bad' in terms of the big picture, in fact everything might be 'good' ultimately.

this is generally accepted reincarnation beliefs Douglas. The reason is that we are all a little part of God and since God is infinite the amounts of souls are as well. This is not supposing but simple math 2+2=4


Yes. God  might 'split off' an infinite amount of souls. He might have, but then he might not. I see it as a continuous process with those rejoining him and others just splitting off on a continual basis. Therefore I would say that there are a finite amount of souls *at any one point in physical time*, but it is a never-ending process and therefore infinite in that sense.

We also have to remember that this whole process is MUCH more complicated than as first imagined. For a start we are applying logical rules to a being who apparently exists outside of the physical universe and therefore the rules of logic could be said to not apply to him; unless he is bound by physical rules of logic?
This concept makes it difficult for ANYONE to argue for different concepts of the divine through logical means, your version or mine, as we only have our own human narrow minded conceptions of physical logic to go by, even if we do have a go anyway!

However, back to the main point about reincarnation.
I think there is an infinite process as described earlier. However, it is perhaps VASTLY more complicated than this. For a start there may not be one single timeline, but rather an infinite variety. So souls each incarnate not only into different points in the time line but in *different timelines*. Moen describes how he has learned that once a soul enters a particular timeline it is bound to it for the duration of its stay (although not necessarily to the linear process of that timeline). However there are an infinite number of different timelines generated by all the infinite variety of choices made by individuals at any given time. This idea is now being realised through quantum physics where it is growing increasingly likely that there is an infinite amount of different timelines and 'alternate universes', generated through individual choices.

So even if there is an infinite amount of souls, there are an infinite amount of timelines for them to occupy as well.

Frank, who was possibly our most advanced astral explorer on this entire forum, eventually reached a level of the astral which he described as the 'exchange territories', not out of a book, but what he had found himself, and described a level which appeared to be the meeting point for all these different realties. He confirmed the notion of infinite realties as suggested by quantum physics through his own exploring, which as I said is what it is all about.

However I will not accept this as FACT as yet, as I am no where near confirming any such thing for myself, but I can certainly consider it and it tends to back up what Quantum physics is telling us; in fact quantum physics and metaphysics are now rapidly approaching one another to an extent that many think that an forthcoming  'paradigm shift' is on the way as far as science is concerned.




Douglas

[Mustardseed]

quote:Get past your dogmatic mindset where we must slavishly obey or restrict ourselves to mainstream religion. We are not discussing mainstream religion per say, but the fundamental notion that souls experience more than one physical lifetime.

.......This point illustrates I think the most fundamental difference between us Mustardseed, as you seem to be restricted to viewing spiritual matters only through the lens of the various established religions, whereas I am not

Firstly Douglas, would you mind terribly to stop insinuating that I am dogmatic restricted narrow minded etc. It is really grinding on me and I find it increasingly harder to not blast you back. We hardly know each other and you really have very little understanding of me and what I believe ....I assure you. [].

Ok Lets talk about a few issues and seperate them a bit. I agree that this is only a speculation, but disagree that I am basing my view point on Fundi "rules" and have such a mindset. My notion is simply this.

Allthough I am doubtful on the notion that we come back an infinite amount of times, I am not totally knocking the multiple life aspect of reincarnation. I have wondered if there migfht be a preexistance in variuous astral inviroments. Must assume that Earth is the starting point and that all after that must surely be better higher or more advanced. This is only a notion. This could as well me the finishing line or a middle stopover. That is ofcourse if we assume there is a linear type of order in it. It seems generally accepted that earth is the central poiunt and all lines pass through it every so often. What if it is not.??

quote:We also have to remember that this whole process is MUCH more complicated than as first imagined. For a start we are applying logical rules to a being who apparently exists outside of the physical universe and therefore the rules of logic could be said to not apply to him; unless he is bound by physical rules of logic?

I find this statement to be confusing and just the type of statement that shuts down any speculation. How do you even speculate if you also maintain that this is a possibility. Its like trying to calculate a a+B=C without knowing A , B or C. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Why are we even talking then[]. Do yoiu get my point?

quote:Explain how this 'doesn't make sense'. I would say that you might find there are more enlightened people in the world than you might think. It depends on your definition of 'enlightened'. This is not a single one off process. People do not 'become enlightened' as a one off event: they are on a long leaning curve and we all become MORE enlightened as time goes on. Some stick around to help others, some don't. Others may be here who don't make it their business to go around advertising themselves. They are here for their own reasons and keep to themselves. They are probably NOT the world leaders, or religious leaders, they may be the guy who takes out the trash or works in the mailroom and who is not concerned with 'fixing the world'. You are unaware of them. It is not their intention to 'fix the world' as such, and it may be the case that it is not meant to be 'fixed'. It is the highs and lows of life with all its joy AND suffering which makes it all worthwhile.

Again this is very confusing for me. This EXCACT POINT I brought up myself in the famous Satan decieves you thread, to Robert Bruce, and he compleately wiped the floor with me. Try to read it.

From Satan decieves you thread:

quote:

Mustardseed said:
I believe that you put way too much importance on realizing your spiritual enlightenment. Many poor illiterate people with no Phd and very little time for delving into things of this nature are very spiritually evolved in my book. Enlightenment as I see it is closeness to God or alignment with his Spirit. So even a poor farmer in some field somewhere who shows unselfish love, a soldier who without worry of his own life saves his friends, a mother that labours day after day with her wayward kids or a father that works 2 jobs to take care of his family can have as much enlightenment as any enlightened mystic IF THEY LOVE .

Robert Bruce said: Well, isn't that nice....

Your opening statement in the above is unphilosophical. You seem to be accusing me of considering myself to be above and beyond other mere mortals, as if I were some kind of cult leader type person. This is something that I take great pains 'not' to do.

Realization is absolutely essential to enlightenment. Enlightenment cannot occur without the staggered realization process. One can become close to God in many simple ways, yes, but one cannot become enlightened through this because enlightenment is a direct result of the realization process. They are indivisible.

I am certainly not unaware of these people at all. They are the reason I believe that enlightenment is strongly overrated and a life lived in love is as important if not more important. This is my own best argument against elitism, and folks who preach this way to God. Gnostics with hidden knowledge etc. If thgis is not done for LOVE it is in my opinion andf experience only a glorified ego trip no heat no warmth no real connection to God  and certainly no "higher" level of understanding. Please read 1Corinthians 13. These are a few quotes you should read the whole thing.


   1Cr 13:1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not LOVE, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  
   
   1Cr 13:2   And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,(in the astral?) and have not LOVE, I am nothing.  


Regards Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have to remember that this whole process is MUCH more complicated than as first imagined. For a start we are applying logical rules to a being who apparently exists outside of the physical universe and therefore the rules of logic could be said to not apply to him; unless he is bound by physical rules of logic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I find this statement to be confusing and just the type of statement that shuts down any speculation. How do you even speculate if you also maintain that this is a possibility. Its like trying to calculate a a+B=C without knowing A , B or C. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Why are we even talking then. Do yoiu get my point?


I did not make this point in order to defend my position as such but rather to point out that we both try to justify our positions by arguing about which one is more 'logical'. Unfortunatly it is the case that logic can only take either of us so far and a materialist arguing purely from the point of logic would blow us both out of the water.
We are talking about things which transcend physical world logic.
I just wanted to remind people who might be reading this thread about this; that none of us should get to hung up on which system is more 'logical' as none of them are, from a physial world logical view!

Just something I wanted to bring up.

I agree with you concerning the RB thread; I think RB may have had one to many attacks from fundi christians which has driven him to a reactionary viewpoint when confronted by anyone with *any* christian views; perhaps he has a fundi-nuager viewpoint?

I dont agree that one has to be 'enlightened' in the buddhic style sense to be closer to god/the divine. I think there is some confusion over the term 'enlightened' which needs to be ironed out.

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Ok I find that fair and logic []. Gods ways are above ours. Maybe he has reasons and ways we cannot concieve at all. About the Fundi heaven, I totally agree. I believe that God in his mercy will let their life in heaven be a continuation of their lives here.

There is a very old joke about a Christian guy who dies and goes to heaven. As Sct Peter leads him along the golden streets he sort of gives him a tour of the place.

"over there in that big mansion lives all the 7day adventists they love singing so you will have agrand time there, over in the mansion to the right we have the mormons, they are big on multiple wives and have some great parties, though no wine is allowed inside, in the house on the corner live the jehovas winnesses but they are hardly ever at home though, still knocking on doors you know" he sort of leads him through this whole part of heaven and on the way they pass a beautifull mansion with a big lawn and he suddenly get real quiet. The guy asks "who lives there" and Sct Peter leans over real close and whispers

"well you see in there live all the fundementalists, we all really love them so we are always real quiet when we pass this way be course they think they are alone up here"[]

I also agree with you about the reasons for Roberts anti Fundi stance. Must be hard to continually have to defend a lifes work and have all that negative energy come knocking. I do think he is a very experienced man and wrote some great books but, on some points IO disagree with him but ....so what! I do find him somewhat dogmatic in certain areas though.

About the Christians giving the liberty for people to find out for themselves I have to tell you that I have done that on numerous occations. Having been a Missionary for some 28 yrs many are the times I have asked people to read the Book of John and ask Jesus into your life and then ask himn to show you the truth. Maybe slightly different but nevertheless.

Regards Mustardseed

[zobelione]

)

[shedt]

No I do not believe in the Christian"s version of "god"

[Buffnewt]

I am just curious, parts of the bible say stuff like you shouldn't deal with fortune tellers and play with spirits and stuff. Cause it is actually tricks from satin. Yet a lot of you say you used to see them and stuff. I was just curious if any of you believe in God.  I am not asking you what you believe in, but I just want to know if any of you believe in God- holy bible God?