I'm reminded of Anita Moorjani. She was one of those cases which should, by all medical opinion at the time, have ended in her death. Her recovery is one of those which defy explanation - even compared to the most unexpected beneficiaries of spontaneous remission (despite what the skeptics claim - as ever).
Anita's story indicates that the body does as the spirit decides which raises the question about people who seem to have been "taken" before their time. Children especially. One can only conclude that the grand reincarnational "big picture" is beyond what makes sense to us from our restricted perspective. Long lives, short lives, temporarily interrupted lives, parts of life in a coma, etc., - somehow these all add up to a soul's journey.
(2018-04-09, 09:58 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Yes it happens everyday in our world. Sometimes because other people know what is best for us and sometimes because that’s the law. Doesn’t it?
That's not a right, that's a capability. Laws are little more than opinions backed by martial power. Don't believe me? go check out what's legal in half of the Middle East and Africa. Doesn't matter how widely held any particular opinion is, it's still just an opinion. Rights do not exist in any objective form. That's the point of my statement, what made them
think they had the right to do that? He wanted to leave, he was fine with being done with that life, he made his choice. Forcing him back to something he didn't want cannot be for any good reason even if he does end up learning something from it. Trying to invent some reasoning that it's all part of some divine plan or for the good of his soul journey or whatever would just be dishonest.
I've been shoved back in my body more than a few times. As far as I'm concerned the people who've forced me back, usually violently, cannot have any legitimate reason to do so. Besides, in some cases some've made it quite clear that their reasons are malicious. So I suppose I do care about the issue a bit more than other people might.
(2018-04-10, 05:18 AM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]He wanted to leave, he was fine with being done with that life, he made his choice. Forcing him back to something he didn't want cannot be for any good reason even if he does end up learning something from it.
It sounds like you're suggesting that he had the right to have his choice respected and to not be forced to do something he didn't want to do. Right?
(2018-04-10, 05:18 AM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]That's not a right, that's a capability. Laws are little more than opinions backed by martial power. Don't believe me? go check out what's legal in half of the Middle East and Africa. Doesn't matter how widely held any particular opinion is, it's still just an opinion. Rights do not exist in any objective form. That's the point of my statement, what made them think they had the right to do that? He wanted to leave, he was fine with being done with that life, he made his choice. Forcing him back to something he didn't want cannot be for any good reason even if he does end up learning something from it. Trying to invent some reasoning that it's all part of some divine plan or for the good of his soul journey or whatever would just be dishonest.
I've been shoved back in my body more than a few times. As far as I'm concerned the people who've forced me back, usually violently, cannot have any legitimate reason to do so. Besides, in some cases some've made it quite clear that their reasons are malicious. So I suppose I do care about the issue a bit more than other people might.
I agree that’s a capability. I think we’d probably agree that Laws are what grant, create or remove rights, whether they are fair or not. So in a sense rights
do exist as a product of laws which are ultimately backed up with some sort authority, which usually includes at least the potential for force or compulsion of some kind don’t they? But I can see that they don’t necessarily exist outside that kind of framework. Or have I misunderstood?
I’d certainly agree that laws don’t seem to be consistent across our world. Although perhaps certain basic concepts of what people have a right or entitlement to expect are generally enshrined in international and human rights law, even if they aren’t followed everywhere.
I can also see why a person or any living thing may be forced, against their will, to accept a course of action (though I’d also say it is to be avoided if at all possible). The motive seems to be to be the measure of it and the person acting must have the capability as you say.
Whether someone has the
right to do it is determined by the Law isn’t it? That law may of course vary from place and I’d agree that capability doesn’t imply right. For example if a person has the capability to enter my house without permission I have a right to ask them to leave, or force them to leave if I have the capability don’t I? I would be acting within the law. The law creates the right for me to own my house, control who enters it and to use reasonable measures to enforce that right (but it isn’t unconditional). If I act outside the law there may be consequences as I may have infringed that person’s rights eg to life. So I’m not sure I get this “rights don’t exist” angle.
Thinking of the situations we’re discussing though I wonder if there
is some authority by which the two acts are carried out. The first one, appears to have been carried out with good motives - ie it was necessary and the person would not comply. Sometimes other people do know what’s best for us. Although it would have been better to gain agreement, perhaps there was some urgency that meant it had to be forced upon them. In other words perhaps it was for their own good and they were either not in the right frame of mind to make the decision or not in possession of sufficient information. I don’t know how the person felt when reflecting on it later.
In your own situation it sounds different - did you get a chance to ask them why they thought they had the right to do it? Is it possible you were somewhere you had no right to be according to some Law you were not aware of? Or were you simply unlucky and strayed into the wrong company (in which case perhaps they broke some law and may face the consequences).
I find the subject very interesting and can’t say I have an answer.
(2018-04-10, 05:31 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]It sounds like you're suggesting that he had the right to have his choice respected and to not be forced to do something he didn't want to do. Right?
It's more like, if they were okay forcing him back, surely they would be okay if someone else forced them to go somewhere they didn't want to either. I mean, they arleady did it to him without provocation so it's not like they could complain without being total hypocrites.
(2018-04-11, 01:56 AM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]It's more like, if they were okay forcing him back, surely they would be okay if someone else forced them to go somewhere they didn't want to either. I mean, they arleady did it to him without provocation so it's not like they could complain without being total hypocrites.
That sounds like fairly good (and common) reasoning for an objective basis to moral principles.
(2018-04-10, 08:20 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that’s a capability. I think we’d probably agree that Laws are what grant, create or remove rights, whether they are fair or not. So in a sense rights do exist as a product of laws which are ultimately backed up with some sort authority, which usually includes at least the potential for force or compulsion of some kind don’t they? But I can see that they don’t necessarily exist outside that kind of framework. Or have I misunderstood?
I’d certainly agree that laws don’t seem to be consistent across our world. Although perhaps certain basic concepts of what people have a right or entitlement to expect are generally enshrined in international and human rights law, even if they aren’t followed everywhere.
I can also see why a person or any living thing may be forced, against their will, to accept a course of action (though I’d also say it is to be avoided if at all possible). The motive seems to be to be the measure of it and the person acting must have the capability as you say.
Whether someone has the right to do it is determined by the Law isn’t it? That law may of course vary from place and I’d agree that capability doesn’t imply right. For example if a person has the capability to enter my house without permission I have a right to ask them to leave, or force them to leave if I have the capability don’t I? I would be acting within the law. The law creates the right for me to own my house, control who enters it and to use reasonable measures to enforce that right (but it isn’t unconditional). If I act outside the law there may be consequences as I may have infringed that person’s rights eg to life. So I’m not sure I get this “rights don’t exist” angle.
Thinking of the situations we’re discussing though I wonder if there is some authority by which the two acts are carried out. The first one, appears to have been carried out with good motives - ie it was necessary and the person would not comply. Sometimes other people do know what’s best for us. Although it would have been better to gain agreement, perhaps there was some urgency that meant it had to be forced upon them. In other words perhaps it was for their own good and they were either not in the right frame of mind to make the decision or not in possession of sufficient information. I don’t know how the person felt when reflecting on it later.
In your own situation it sounds different - did you get a chance to ask them why they thought they had the right to do it? Is it possible you were somewhere you had no right to be according to some Law you were not aware of? Or were you simply unlucky and strayed into the wrong company (in which case perhaps they broke some law and may face the consequences).
I find the subject very interesting and can’t say I have an answer.
I'm not going to cover all the legal stuff because this reply has taken long enough for me to get to as it is but it looks like we more or less agree on all of it anyways.
I've tried a few times to write a reply to your question and failed because the whole situation is really complex and I don't even know where to start with it. What I can say is that I don't know 100% what peoples reasons are but I've cobbled together a few likely reasons. Also I realized that the people that I've talked to probably weren't the ones actually shoving me back in my body. It's entirely likely the two groups have nothing to do with each other to the degree of being openly hostile, making it more complicated. The only thing I can say as far as reasons go is that they didn't like me and saw me being here as better for them than the alternative. That much seems obvious to me. But any specifics would just be guesses.
As far as the debates and other reasons I'm not going to try going into the entire story in this one reply so here's the short, grossly oversimplified version. Basically, there was a group of people who claimed that they were attempting to teach humanity to be more independent as individuals via manipulating the world to become as authoritarian as possible so that people would eventually learn that "the only way to win is not to play." Their claimed methods were to be to a combination of subtle psychic manipulation over long periods of time and influence if not outright co-opting or control of at least part of the reincarnation cycle. I had many, many issues with this and had just as many debates about it. They didn't react very well to that.
At some point it got violent, it's really hard to pick a specific flashpoint of when this all happened, but it snowballed into a multifaction conflict sometime in 2010 which nearly physically killed me multiple times. It resolved, or at least slowed to almost nothing, sometime in, I believe, 2012. Although the length of this whole thing might've gone back as far as 2008 depending what events you include and could arguably be said to be continuing to this day. But the peak was 2010-2011 as far as I'm concerned.
This is why I get so uppity about people getting told they need to go back and, especially, reincarnation cases where people are told that it's their "obligation to go live a good life" or similar. Because it very much corroborates what I went through.
(2018-05-06, 05:42 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]This is a very well made French documentary featuring veridical NDE/STE reports along with commentary from various medical experts, doctors, psychiatrists etc.
First get the subtitles up and then go to auto-translate into English. It's not a perfect translation but most of it comes up pretty well. Or that's the impression I got.
Malf, if you're going to watch it, you'll need a whole box of doggy chocs 
it is rather long. Well worth a look, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2s7dbvChA
Most certainly it is well worth a look. But, it is necessary to switch on the auto-translate.
As regards the people in this documentary, the most important is anesthesiologist dr Jean Jacque Charbonnier, who is the complete opposite of his colleague but arch-denialist Gerarld Woerlee. In contrast to the latter, Charbonnier is sincerely certain of an independent consciousness which survives physical death. He has written several books about it.
It is a pity that the French NDE researchers do not often publish in English.
Smithy
(2018-05-07, 04:03 PM)Smithy Wrote: [ -> ]Most certainly it is well worth a look. But, it is necessary to switch on the auto-translate.
As regards the people in this documentary, the most important is anesthesiologist dr Jean Jacque Charbonnier, who is the complete opposite of his colleague but arch-denialist Gerarld Woerlee. In contrast to the latter, Charbonnier is sincerely certain of an independent consciousness which survives physical death. He has written several books about it.
It is a pity that the French NDE researchers do not often publish in English.
Smithy
Yes, Smithy and it was interesting to hear Dr Woerlee's thoughts on Charbonier (a couple of years or so back). As I recall, he was not impressed with Charbonier's 30 years experience as he (Gerry) had 37 !