Reincarnation Cases

I can't answer most of the questions but I'd say it's a prettt strong case, I find cases like this very striking, it really does point to reincarnation or some sort of memory transfer etc. What do you think?

Memory transfer is of course a possibility.  But what makes the re-incarnation theory more probably to me is 1) Its history as mainstay in many religious/philosophical systems (but mostly) 2) Part of the data in a lot of these cases is the fact that many of these people have birthmarks and scars which correlate to past mortal injuries or deathblows which were incurred by the people who these reincarnatees were in a past life. So it seems that more is being transferred then memories, unless the memory transfer is manifesting in physical ways as well, which is possible.   But we also need to remember that part of the data and gathered info which people who experience NDE's, OBE's, deep state meditation, and even alien abduction/encounters all have (in many many cases) brought forth gleaned and learned information about the reality of reincarnation.

Spoken by a True Believer, it appears. Just maybe, this is actually the case, but the "you" referred to must be the soul or spirit, not the human. Not the human who is struggling and is ignorant of these principles, not the human mentally disadvantaged person with an IQ of 50 dying of cancer and dimly wondering why this and why am I different, not the African child of 2 dying of AIDS contracted from the mother, or maybe of starvation. All these persons know is that they suffer.

It's all that they currently know.  But this isnt the only or final act.  I think things will make sense in the end.  Of course that's just a belief,  but it lines up with all the data I take from experiencers.

Anyone can post anywhere on this forum, correct? I would love to hear from some of the skeptics about their opinions on this stuff, if they're around.

Ive listened to a lot of them.  The typical skeptic response goes like this, "oh come on, reincarnation.  Yea right.  They just picked this info up from somewhere and concocted a story."  And that's really all they can say.

I'm sorry, jkmac, but your stories, whilst inspirational, don't deal in the sort of scenarios which I think severely trouble your case. For example, I have a friend who suffers from PTSD. She had the most ghastly mother who severely stunted her personal development, and which opened her up to have been conned and manipulated by sociopaths later in life. She is not saying, "Oh boy, how great it was that my mother *#!?ed me up, and that I've been *#!?ed over by socipaths, that has really taught me some lessons". It hasn't. It has just made her suffer. Same deal with the sex-slave example I provided earlier. You suggested that maybe the slave was once a master, and needed to learn how slavery felt. Here's an idea: a world without slaves and masters in the first place. Maybe the Being who created this system didn't quite manage to think of that?

I think that assumes that the creator/creators of this system are omnipotent and flawless. I think its very possible that they have experimented with many systems and got many wrong, many right, and many good enough.

  With regards to the earlier part of your post, I have heard it both ways.  For example, Christian Theology has directly championed the suffering servants of God (us) and that this suffering is part of our learning and salvation.  On the flip end, The Seth Material states that suffering is in no way good for the soul at all.  I'm not sure what to make of the issue of suffering, and it's difficult to get a feel for the right answer to this by sifting through the NDE, OBE, Reincarnation, medium data etc.

https://youtu.be/p6J0fDZjn68. 

The link is a video narrated  by kieth parsons about an aapparent case of temporary  reincarnation.

Ive listened to a lot of them.  The typical skeptic response goes like this, "oh come on, reincarnation.  Yea right.  They just picked this info up from somewhere and concocted a story."  And that's really all they can say.

Right. I find the reincarnation evidence to be reasonably persuasive and relatively sound, and I've genuinely never heard anything I'd consider a strong rebuttal of any of the good cases.

Right. I find the reincarnation evidence to be reasonably persuasive and relatively sound, and I've genuinely never heard anything I'd consider a strong rebuttal of any of the good cases.

Reasonable, relative. Seems a bit half-hearted to me. And that's ok. There's no reason to climb aboard just because someone else did. Follow your own star.

Myself, I never had any interest in reincarnation. That wasn't the problem I set out to investigate or understand. It was something much more immediate and direct which concerned me. This life, right here, right now. I came from a logical maths/physics mindset where everything had some sort of cause, make a change here, and something there will change as a result. Not that I held the world to be deterministic, just interconnected.

When it came to things of the mind, things of the heart, joys and sorrows, successes and failures, it always seemed as though here, this sort of causality had some general sort of flow too. If one looks to just about any theory of the mind, no matter which branch, materialist, chemistry, physical, emotional, spiritual, there is always some sort of causality. One thing leads to another. And that was the greatest mystery for me. I had an outcome without any cause.

This break in the chain, the disconnect led to a search - with nothing excluded, for possible mechanisms which might even begin to explain that most mundane of things, everyday life. I was stumped. Thus went the search. To my enormous surprise, and against everything I hitherto believed even plausible, it was reincarnation which was able to fit that gap, the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle, which not only answered an immediate problem, it released the pressure. It was like being able to breathe freely again after being caught up in a confined space.

Reasonable, relative. Seems a bit half-hearted to me. And that's ok. There's no reason to climb aboard just because someone else did. Follow your own star.

Myself, I never had any interest in reincarnation. That wasn't the problem I set out to investigate or understand. It was something much more immediate and direct which concerned me. This life, right here, right now. I came from a logical maths/physics mindset where everything had some sort of cause, make a change here, and something there will change as a result. Not that I held the world to be deterministic, just interconnected.

When it came to things of the mind, things of the heart, joys and sorrows, successes and failures, it always seemed as though here, this sort of causality had some general sort of flow too. If one looks to just about any theory of the mind, no matter which branch, materialist, chemistry, physical, emotional, spiritual, there is always some sort of causality. One thing leads to another. And that was the greatest mystery for me. I had an outcome without any cause.

This break in the chain, the disconnect led to a search - with nothing excluded, for possible mechanisms which might even begin to explain that most mundane of things, everyday life. I was stumped. Thus went the search. To my enormous surprise, and against everything I hitherto believed even plausible, it was reincarnation which was able to fit that gap, the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle, which not only answered an immediate problem, it released the pressure. It was like being able to breathe freely again after being caught up in a confined space.

I just think it's wise to maintain a voice that sits closer to the middle than full-fledged acceptance, especially for the things discussed here, but much of what you said resonates with me. I think the reincarnation evidence has been the most robust of all that I have encountered, and in that same vein the most difficult to rebut, and I certainly did not expect that to be anything close to the case when I really began researching this sort of material.

I understand some of the objections to the studies that have been done thus far, but as I previously stated here and on other threads, I've yet to see a genuinely good rebuttal of the evidence. I think that, at the absolute bare minimum, it is suggestive that there is something, just something, going on beyond the reductionist, "there's nothing more to it" narrative.

I just think it's wise to maintain a voice that sits closer to the middle than full-fledged acceptance, especially for the things discussed here, but much of what you said resonates with me. I think the reincarnation evidence has been the most robust of all that I have encountered, and in that same vein the most difficult to rebut, and I certainly did not expect that to be anything close to the case when I really began researching this sort of material.

I understand some of the objections to the studies that have been done thus far, but as I previously stated here and on other threads, I've yet to see a genuinely good rebuttal of the evidence. I think that, at the absolute bare minimum, it is suggestive that there is something, just something, going on beyond the reductionist, "there's nothing more to it" narrative.

Right, do I believe that re-incarnation occurs or, at a bare minimum, has occurred for many individuated conscious beings.  Absolutely.  Do I KNOW? Of course not.  But I feel so strongly about the evidence that I generally assume it to be a truth of creation.

I just think it's wise to maintain a voice that sits closer to the middle than full-fledged acceptance, especially for the things discussed here, but much of what you said resonates with me. I think the reincarnation evidence has been the most robust of all that I have encountered, and in that same vein the most difficult to rebut, and I certainly did not expect that to be anything close to the case when I really began researching this sort of material.

I understand some of the objections to the studies that have been done thus far, but as I previously stated here and on other threads, I've yet to see a genuinely good rebuttal of the evidence. I think that, at the absolute bare minimum, it is suggestive that there is something, just something, going on beyond the reductionist, "there's nothing more to it" narrative.

"I just think it's wise to maintain a voice that sits closer to the middle than full-fledged acceptance, especially for the things discussed here"

I completely understand that. I especially do not attempt to prove anything, it is sometimes a folly to even attempt it. At any rate, it doesn't seem to be my allotted task, others can argue the case more strongly.

But I would also advise caution. There are a number of cases to be found online (and I deliberately won't mention them) which I feel are somewhere between mistaken and possible but questionable. Certainly I think we each need to use our own judgement.