Reincarnation Cases

I guess it would depend on the person, and whether they're still in agony and kind, severity. I don't know.

Right at this moment I'm thinking of the NDE of that woman who got hid by an explosive device in Irak. During her NDE, she was with the souls who helped her perpetrate and plan this event, and they were laughing about it, and saying "What would happen if we did this to her instead?", etc. going through the possibilities, etc. It was play, like children almost. And coming back she has both perspectives. She has the perspective that it was play. But still has physical injuries (or had), and has PTSD that sometimes comes up where, like anybody else, she has a panic attack, and in that moment it's not fun at all. (Natalie Sudman's the name, she's got interviews up on Bob Olson's AfterlifeTV.)

WTF? That is messed up... Yet, very similar to what we do while playing video games.

I think that reality must conform to the laws and truths of logic. These are things like the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of of the excluded middle. These fundamental laws should be and are considered true principles governing reality. For one thing, if they are not then rational discourse would be impossible - we couldn't even be sure 2 plus 2 always equals 4. We are certainly fundamentally incapable of imagining and envisioning such a realm. If the spiritual reality of souls and spirits does not conform to the logical principles inherent in our existence then these issues are fundamentally impossible to understand, and we might as well give up any attempt.
  
The double slit experiment aside, this matter of whether there is soul choice of the next life, and some important aspects of what must be the nature of this soul, does in part at least boil down to a little simple logic based on our knowledge of our human selves. What as human beings would our decision be if given the choice whether or not to condemn ourselves to a life of suffering and struggle in order to grow spiritually? At least I am sure I know what my decision would be. Somebody or something else might decide differently. This is the case regardless of any number of channeled communications, past life memories obtained under hypnosis, and NDE accounts.

It might be logical but perhaps we can't see the logic from our limited perspective. According to some channeled material, karma does exist though not in an eye-for-an-eye sense. I might have it all wrong but, as I understand it, incarnational dramas can play out over multiple lifetimes with karmic ties being created and resolved along the way. I imagine a kind of victim-perpetrator cycle that can get pretty messy due to repeated bad decisions and destructive personality traits over many lifetimes. Roles might have to be swapped so that the perpetrator can experience life as a victim but, little by little, life by life, our experiences move us from our base amorality to an awareness of what it is like for others to suffer. Thus from egocentric indifference to empathy and compassion.

This is from Seth Speaks. Perhaps not precisely what I was looking for but I'll have a search for other examples. I haven't read too many other channeled books but those I have all seem to say something similar.

Now all of this can be applied to your relationships in your reincarnational existences, and of course it also is highly pertinent to your current daily experience. If you hate another person, that hate may bind you to him through as many lives as you allow the hate to consume you. You draw to yourself in this existence and in all others those qualities upon which you concentrate your attention. If you vividly concern yourself with the injustices you feel have been done to you, then you attract more such experience, and if this goes on, then it will be mirrored in your next existence. It is true that in between lives there is “time “for understanding and contemplation.

Those who do not taken advantage of such opportunities in this life often do not do so when it is over. Consciousness will expand. It will create. It will turn itself inside out to do so. There is nothing outside of yourself that will force you to understand these issues or face them.

It is useless then to say, “When this life is over I will look back upon my experience and mend my ways.” This is like a young man saying, “When I grow old and retire, I will use all those abilities that I am not now developing." You are setting the stage for your “next” life now. The thoughts you think today will in one way or another become the fabric of your next existence. There are no magic words that make you wise, that will fill you with understanding and compassion; that will expand your consciousness.

Here's another article which deals with reincarnation and karma from the perspective described in the Seth books. This explains it much better than I would have been able to do and also includes some focus on the question of natural disasters. I'd suggest it would be worth reading the whole article but here's a taste:

We are here, then, NOT to endure the inescapable suffering of karma conventionally conceived, but rather to learn all we can about how we create our own reality.  Outside of three-dimensional reality (3-D), our creations would be instantaneous; thoughts would be immediately realized into being.  Here, in 3-D, our creations take time to materialize, giving us a chance to understand the intricacies and implications of what we create and to modify or provide alternates to what we form. As Seth says, “You may have brought negative influences into your life for a given reason, but the reason always has to do with understanding, and understanding removes those influences” Seth Speaks, p. 181).

Still, why would we choose to create dilemmas and disasters for ourselves if, it seems, we do not have to, if we are not being punished for an “earlier” transgression?  The most fundamental reason for creating and experiencing the negative, as well as the positive, is what Seth calls “value fufillment.” This is the innate, Divine impulse in any entity, from every god and oversoul to every sub-atomic particle and vibrating string, to realize its infinite potential in any and all dimensions and manifestations.  Value fulfillment is the cosmic equivalent of the Army slogan, “Be all that you can be.”

Furthermore, says Seth, without forming both positive and negative creations, we would not really get that we create our own reality, that we have free will, and that we always have choices: “If only your ‘positive’ beliefs were materialized then you would never clearly comprehend the power of your thought, for you would not completely experience its physical results” (The Nature of Personal Reality, p. 99). Abraham-Hicks make this idea a cornerstone of their writings: the contrast between getting what you want and getting what you do not want sharpens your perception of what you want, spurs your creation of what you most desire, and makes much clearer that you are choosing what you experience.

And again ...

The only reason for creating suffering, says Seth frequently in his books, is to learn that you have the choice not to create it.  Moreover, he goes on to say, even with all the destructiveness that has accompanied humanity’s striving to recognize and understand that we create all of our reality, there is much that is achieved: “The self-discipline learned, the control, the compassion that finally is aroused, and the final and last lesson learned, the positive desire for creativity and love over destruction and hatred–when this is learned, the reincarnational cycle is finished”.

I think that reality must conform to the laws and truths of logic. These are things like the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of of the excluded middle. These fundamental laws should be and are considered true principles governing reality. For one thing, if they are not then rational discourse would be impossible - we couldn't even be sure 2 plus 2 always equals 4. We are certainly fundamentally incapable of imagining and envisioning such a realm. If the spiritual reality of souls and spirits does not conform to the logical principles inherent in our existence then these issues are fundamentally impossible to understand, and we might as well give up any attempt.
  
The double slit experiment aside, this matter of whether there is soul choice of the next life, and some important aspects of what must be the nature of this soul, does in part at least boil down to a little simple logic based on our knowledge of our human selves. What as human beings would our decision be if given the choice whether or not to condemn ourselves to a life of suffering and struggle in order to grow spiritually? At least I am sure I know what my decision would be. Somebody or something else might decide differently. This is the case regardless of any number of channeled communications, past life memories obtained under hypnosis, and NDE accounts.

OK-

So I've got two ways to come at this...

1-
So you come across a man who has a person tied up in their garage and is torturing him. Does "simple logic" tell you he is right or wrong?

I would assume you would say he is wrong, because 1+1=2 right?

OK, so later you find out, he's torturing him because the guy has the man's family held hostage and has killed one, and has left the others to die somewhere...

OK, what does simple logic tell you now?

Yes of course simple logic needs to be applied to all we do, but you are using it to claim you know the right path when the truth is MUCH deeper than your simplistic 1+1 view of things. You are deluding yourself.

2-
You remind me of the what the not so ancient "scientists" said about meteors: that they are impossible because obviously rocks can't fall from the sky. To them is was "simple logic". 

It was shown of course that simple logic needs to be applied VERY carefully, as it sometime just proves that you don't understand the thing about which you speak. 

If I were you I would leave those questions up in the air, unanswered, rather than to answer them with faulty thinking. 

But that's just me.

In any case, with all due respect, it's not that your logic doesn't confirm to my evidence,,,,

It's that- As soon as you start selectively choosing the evidence you wish to respect, your opinion looses credibility, at least with me. Not that this should mean anything to you but,,, just saying.

snip- but nobody chooses a miserable life deliberately
What do you base this on?

And what leads you to decide that choosing ones parents IS based on reliable information, however the other stuff is unreliable? Sounds like you are making these choices on what you think should be true. 

Or is there some particular way that you are determining reliability that is objective?

I think that the information gathered from CORTs is reliable, but channeled information is not.

In a previous post you said-
It is always the same individual, same being, whether he is incarnate or discarnate. E.g. in this life I can decide, whether I'm going to visit my friends A and B in my hometown, or my friends C and D in another city. After my death I can decide whether I want to have couple AB or DC as my parents. It is always the same I that makes the decisions

Given your recent answers I think that the "you" in life 1 and 2 are different in some important ways (memories and maybe personalities) and generally don't know about each other, it seems that at least in terms of day to day experiences, they are different people.  

Seems like you are also saying the version of you in the afterlife is really a combination of those previous lives and others perhaps and that the "larger" or maybe "expanded" you includes and is aware of this.

So in some ways, the you who chooses which friend to visit in life is different and unaware of the you in the afterlife. So it looks to me like the are not the same person, in terms of awareness of each other. 

Consequently, not sure why you would say it is "the same I who makes the decisions". Feels like different "I"s to me. And seem like they will make different choices because they have different perspective, likes, memories and motivations.

No biggie either way to me,,, but that's why I asked those questions...

As a 37 years old man I have different perspective, likes, memories and motivations than the 5 years old Raimo. Nevertheless, I am still the same "I", same being.

People who remember their previous lives tell that thay have been the same person (/"I", "being" etc.) in their previous lives. I think their statements are more reliable than channeled information, and certainly more valuable than vague theorizing about "higher self" etc.

It might be logical but perhaps we can't see the logic from our limited perspective. According to some channeled material, karma does exist though not in an eye-for-an-eye sense. I might have it all wrong but, as I understand it, incarnational dramas can play out over multiple lifetimes with karmic ties being created and resolved along the way. I imagine a kind of victim-perpetrator cycle that can get pretty messy due to repeated bad decisions and destructive personality traits over many lifetimes. Roles might have to be swapped so that the perpetrator can experience life as a victim but, little by little, life by life, our experiences move us from our base amorality to an awareness of what it is like for others to suffer. Thus from egocentric indifference to empathy and compassion.

This sort of scheme seems credible to me, even if not particularly humanly desirable. It is essentially either an involuntary mechanism inexorably imposing itself on the human generation after generation (a mechanism originally set up by higher beings), or a system involving decisions deliberately imposed on each human by some other conscious agent, in both cases against the will of the human.

The only reason for creating suffering, says Seth frequently in his books, is to learn that you have the choice not to create it.  Moreover, he goes on to say, even with all the destructiveness that has accompanied humanity’s striving to recognize and understand that we create all of our reality, there is much that is achieved: “The self-discipline learned, the control, the compassion that finally is aroused, and the final and last lesson learned, the positive desire for creativity and love over destruction and hatred–when this is learned, the reincarnational cycle is finished”.

The Seth material at first look seems inspiring and may be the truth in some sense, but it has the same inherent problems that have been pointed out many times by non-believers:  Wait a  minute - what is the nature of this being that is doing all this striving to realize all it can be? What is its relationship to the human, I mean for instance the human reading this thread right now? It seems to me that this system is set up for the benefit of this being, not the human. Secondly, this being in its natural realm of existence already has all the knowledge and qualities the Seth material claims it wants to realize in the Earth environment. Why go to all this trouble? Presumably, in order to experience the limitations that do not exist in its native realm and to experience the achievement of the difficult things that are not difficult in its native realm. It would seem that the human is mainly the means to experience these things.

I think that the information gathered from CORTs is reliable, but channeled information is not.

Fair enough.

For me? I have personal proof of channeling's validity. 

OTOH- Am I saying ALL channeling is accurate? Of course not, I can think if no info source that is 100% accurate.