Reincarnation Cases

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 am somewhat dubious about accepting all of the Seth material at face value too. I have my doubts about the Seth personality, being more inclined to think of "him" as a creation of Jane Robert's own psyche. Indeed, she herself wondered whether that might be the case. In which case she may have been channeling information from - what should we call it - the collective consciousness? The Akashic Record? I'm sure that such material rarely comes through unadulterated; there is probably some role for the local consciousness in reassembling the data  which might be subject to interpretation. 

However, I think the fact that Jane Roberts was a well educated person with a good vocabulary and proven writing skills (she was a novelist) probably resulted in the Seth Material being more comprehensive than most other channeled works. She seems to have been close to the ideal delivery medium.

I don't see the separation of spirit and human that you seem to be convinced of. I think that the earth experience has been created precisely because the "natural" realm of spirit can't provide the same challenges. But, in my view, the human is a fragment of the whole, not some proxy created to suffer and die so that some other being can watch from on high like a scientist with a lab rat. The experience of the human is integral to and experienced by the whole.

[Laird]

Laird:
Warning: This is going to get woo-woo, sorry.

But consider the possibility that this person who is a sex slave, "owned" a sex slave in some other incarnation. If, and I just say IF, this was true, is it possible that this person might benefit from seeing this experience from the opposite perspective? And consider the possibility that the owner of the sex slave that you just referred to, is very very very close to the person who is the sex slave in their "real life" (LBL), and is doing this, not out of some horrible motivation, but to help their very close friend (family really) learn something they strongly desire to learn.

I say this NOT to convince you this viewpoint is true, (that might not even be possible based on your own world view) but to show you that there is a consistent and logical thought process here, that is based on actual non-religious/non-dogmatic writings from actual people who claim that they have had the actual experience of LBL and remember it. Essentially those who have seen these things up close.

IF you could imagine for a few minutes that these channeled and other materials were true, you might imagine how this process of playing out scenarios might be intentional, and might be purposeful, and might be instructional, and therefore positive.

Again: this is less about convincing you, but more about explaining why reasonable people, people of good will, can and do believe that this is actually how things work. You may already know all this and if so, perhaps at least others who read it may be exposed to an alternative perspective...

I now give you back control of your non woo-woo tv set... (hopefully you are old enough to get the 60 's TV joke) 

Sorry for the very delayed response, jkmac.

The main problem I have with this paradigm (and I know you said you weren't trying to convince me) is the idea that suffering is the best (or at least a valid) way for us to learn. That seems to me to be utterly wrong-headed. And, as somebody else wrote in this thread (sorry, I forget who): if the Being that set up this system is perfect or at least has learnt Its lessons and is a Very Good Being, then why could it not have created us perfect or at least Very Good in the first place, so that we didn't "need" to suffer to learn how to love? Are not the souls which we are part of already perfect or at least Very Good, in which case, what is the point of our learning on their behalf that which they already know better than we do?

Getting back to the sex-slave example: I'm sorry, but the idea that this scenario could be one of learning for the enslaved is one which I find abhorrent. It is tantamount to sanctioning torture.

[Laird]

P.S. Oh boy, I'm way too young to get 60s TV jokes! I wasn't even alive then!

Sorry for the very delayed response, jkmac.

The main problem I have with this paradigm (and I know you said you weren't trying to convince me) is the idea that suffering is the best (or at least a valid) way for us to learn. That seems to me to be utterly wrong-headed. And, as somebody else wrote in this thread (sorry, I forget who): if the Being that set up this system is perfect or at least has learnt Its lessons and is a Very Good Being, then why could it not have created us perfect or at least Very Good in the first place, so that we didn't "need" to suffer to learn how to love? Are not the souls which we are part of already perfect or at least Very Good, in which case, what is the point of our learning on their behalf that which they already know better than we do?

Getting back to the sex-slave example: I'm sorry, but the idea that this scenario could be one of learning for the enslaved is one which I find abhorrent. It is tantamount to sanctioning torture.

I thunk we may not have the perspective or information or cognitive ability to understand the why, and just barely the what. So I stick with the what for the most part.

So to get to your question about why not just make us perfect from day one? 

Which would you say would be of more value to someone?

1- You spend years developing an appreciation for art and architecture and for fine building. You live in various houses, and learn what you do and don't like. You talk and dream for years about the perfect house. You develop the skills to design and build the thing with your bare hands. And then you finally do it. You build your dream house.

2- Some benefactor gives you a grand house when you are one year old. 

Which of these has real and lasting value? Significance? Purpose? And which doesn't?

In terms of suffering? Let me tell you a 2 stories that happened to me this weekend.

I spent 3 days volunteering for a 50 mile 3 day walk on Cape Cod to benefit the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. 
On the first day I was talking with a co-volunteer and she was telling me about how she couldn't "sit in those metal chairs all day" as they hurt her back. Turns out she was in a horrible car wreck 10 years ago where she was thrown from the car and badly injured. Turns out also that her husband and 7 month old son were killed in the accident. She showed me a picture that that beautiful boy names Joshua that was taken a week before he died. 

Of course I spoke words of consolation and said something like "that must have been a terrible thing to get over",, then I correctly myself saying it's "probably something you NEVER get over". 

You know what she said to me after thanking me for my thoughts? She said, yes, I loved my boy very much and still do, but his and my husband's loss made me who I am today, and that's not a bad thing. I know I will see him again when the time's right, but until then, he helped make me who I am, and I love that.

That's not torture, it's the foundry in which which people are built.

And here's the second story that taught me something this weekend.

On day two after 3 hours of working at a rest stop, the last walker trudged by, head down focused ahead. He wore a Marine cammo uniform and a rucksack on his back that was obviously heavily loaded. He didn't look up, and he didn't stop for a drink. He marched by with a determined look on his face, as he worked this task.

I made a comment, and the person beside me told me his story.

He has been doing this event for 5 years and he always does it the same way. Stoically, without a word, only focus and determination. 

Apparently around 10 years ago his wife contracted MS and was suffering a lot. And apparently he felt that she needed to toughen up After all he thought, look at what I do every day in the US Marines... This went on for some time, and I believe that they eventually separated or divorced over this.

At some point, I don't know the details, he had a realization that what he had done was inexcusable. And he felt he needed to make it right somehow. And now every year, he loads his rucksack with 35 pounds of sand, and he walks this 50 mile course. Nobody asked him to do it. Most don't know the story of why he does it. It's just something that he feels he owes his ex wife, or perhaps himself. Something that must be done to heal the wounds he has caused others and perhaps himself through his actions. 

Torture? Maybe. But this is being done voluntarily by a man who feels he is building or maybe repairing something deep inside of himself.

I don't know if these things resonate, but to me, they feel like something directly relating to your thoughts.

[Laird]

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?

[Laird]

Also, re the house-building example: why couldn't the builder have been created with the knowledge of how to build houses in the first place, as well as the creativity to build original houses? After all, knowledge is a commodity, but creativity - that's a gift.

P.S. I have no problem with somebody spending years exploring and examining houses and deciding what they really want - that's hardly a process of suffering! So... not sure how this example makes your case for you.

Perhaps not relevant, but a thought I am having while reading this thread, so I will share.

Assuming that time is not as it seems and that in reality we are living all "our" lives in the same instant, one can imagine an intelligence at the center of a group of lives, "tuning" the over-all harmony of all the lives within that group to reach a certain resonance. Perhaps lives are added or removed as required to achieve specific "notes." Perhaps more challenging, or even painful "lives" are added to counter-balance some other tone that has become too apparent. I'm thinking that the hum of all these "lives" may sound something like a microphone placed inside a bee's nest. And an "intelligence" is listening closely, utterly absorbed in the joy of tuning this hive. A hive of lives.

[Laird]

Nice, Chuck. A hive of lives.

Sorry for the very delayed response, jkmac.

The main problem I have with this paradigm (and I know you said you weren't trying to convince me) is the idea that suffering is the best (or at least a valid) way for us to learn. That seems to me to be utterly wrong-headed.

I'm not going to get into the more heavy subjects you raised.

But I was just listening to different songs by Marianne faithful - a demure version from 1965, and then the later songs from maybe late 1980s onwards. There's a lot more 'bite' and expression in the later interpretations, something which only comes with experience. And she does have a story to tell. In many ways, though my life has nothing at all in common with hers, yet I can empathise with the journey she travelled, we all have a story to tell - and it changes us along the way.

Of course it isn't all about suffering - most people's lives contain joys as well. But maybe it's like a black-and white photograph - without the dark areas, there would be nothing there at all.

Maybe the Being who created this system didn't quite manage to think of that?

What I don't get, I think you've used a similar expression before, is what convinces you that coming up with this concept of a creator who can be blamed for all the ills of this world is the right approach?

To me it seems strange to try to pass off the problem to some other. It is that sense of separation it gives which I find disconcerting, as if we humans ourselves are aliens on this planet, rather than an intimate part of it.